|
|
Post by nerweniel on Feb 25, 2007 11:34:10 GMT -5
Hm, I have the audio version of the play somewhere, I haven't listened to it yet as I don't really like audio plays but I think I will at some point. Mulgrew didn't reprise the part for the tour because she had some troubles with the director, I believe. I'm rather a fan of Star Trek: Voyager, which starred Mulgrew as Captain Janeway, and I must say that I think she is a fine actress with a greater physical resemblance to Kate than Cate Blanchett (indeed, too many Kates  )... no idea about Tea at Five though, I think I should have a look if the CD is somewhere over here or at home ;D. |
|
|
|
Post by martha on Dec 30, 2007 17:54:38 GMT -5
I saw the original off broadway production of this play with Mulgrew (in June 2003 .. the very weekend that Kate passed away) ... and was quite impressed. was prepared not to be. seemed to me at the time to be a respectful script, a deep representation (not impersonation) ... and a carefully chosen arc to capture important dimensions of Hepburn's persona ... set at fenwick in two'acts' but played without an intermission ... 1938, at 31, just before the hurricane .. regaining her emotional strength after the series of commercial failures and just before PHILADELPHIA STORY on stage ... and 1983 or so .. while being courted (via phone, via weekly floral bouquets) by warren beatty for LOVE AFFAIR. each arc ends in a YES and what we know is a success ... its a memory play .. even more affectionate and slightly fuzzy with time.
I saw another production of it about two weeks ago here in chicago .. with tovah feldshuh as kate. tovah is an amanzing actress (have you seen KISSING JESSICA STEIN? she is jessica's mom) ... long credits on stage and television (recurrent role also as a defense attorney on LAW AND ORDER) ... i was severely challenged by her physicality (she is petite and, well, in her early 60s i believe .. yet gorgeous) in the early going .. kate at 31 .. yet she won me over even there. and as kate in her 80s ... .fabulous.
my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodHepcat on Dec 30, 2007 19:12:51 GMT -5
Uhm, wasn't Tea at Five written in THREE days? And the only reason for writing it in the first place was because the playwright thought KM bared a resemblance to KH? I'm not saying you shouldn't have enjoyed it. By all means! I, personally, could not even stand 5 minutes of youtube video of Kate's performance [although, at profile angles she looked FREAKISHLY like Kath] without screaming at my computer screen. I think I saved us all the embarrassment and aggravation by not going to see it.  |
|
|
|
Post by martha on Dec 30, 2007 23:26:46 GMT -5
i'm not sure how long the playwright took to generate the initial script .. but i'll bet 'cha there were revisions and alternations that added up to a total of much more than three days being expended on the script. i don't know its initial publication/generation/intellectual history. yes, i do recall that the playwright wrote it FOR mulgrew ..
the arc of the entire performance is the only way, imho, to give the piece its full due. 5 minutes of anything is .. well .. only the tip of the ice berg. but hey .. ya gotta follow your inclinations .. trust your instincts. i see A LOT of theatre and give many things a try (saw three plays this weekend, for example) ... in this case, i'll say that i'm glad i did .. give it a try, i mean.
and like people here, i've read many many many kate biographies and have been a fan for .. well, i've already belabored that point. ..
|
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodHepcat on Dec 31, 2007 22:36:08 GMT -5
I love the theatre, too. And I'm not saying you don't love Kate as much as anybody here! One of my great pals has seen Tea at Five with Mulgrew and RAVED about it. I'm just, eh, incredibly critical, I suppose. Call it my Tracy Samantha Lord standard. To each his own!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hep on Dec 31, 2007 22:42:35 GMT -5
Tea at Five is playing in Rochester, New York--and ive been trying to convince my dad to take me for like a month now; but hmm not so sure now with all the mixed reviews lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by martha on Jan 1, 2008 14:17:04 GMT -5
Tea at Five is playing in Rochester, New York--and ive been trying to convince my dad to take me for like a month now; but hmm not so sure now with all the mixed reviews lol. who will be playing kate in the rochester production .... do you know? tovah feldshuh is worth seeing for her power as an actress alone ... |
|
|
|
Post by Hep on Jan 1, 2008 14:36:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by martha on Jan 1, 2008 16:30:36 GMT -5
i just looked around for evidence of this young Rochester actress's experience .. the key word here is .. she appears young. i'd be wondering whether she could carry this off .... as with many one woman - tribute shows as this one the success absolutely depends on the acting cajones of the woman on stage. ... with this actress ... i have no way to advise ... i suspect her strength in this will be precisely the opposite of what i have experienced with mulgrew in 2003 and feldshuh a few weeks ago ... these middle aged actresses excelled as the hepburn in the 1980s .. and a bit more challenged by playing nhepburn in the 1930s. its the mature hepburn who had my heart in the two productions i have seen and carries the heart of the show .. so ... just my two cents. to everyone who has expressed concerns about the show and who haven't seen it: believe me when i say that the play on the page is respectful and honors kate. now you want to talk about disrespect ... talk to us garland fans about plays and one-woman shows that have been done in recent years or ... egad .. the wainwright travesty that traveled the world in 2006 and 2007 is having prolonged life on CD and DVD just now ... yikes. and even worse, wainwright's press over the past two years, commenting on garland. but i'll save that for another thread if appropriate ... i'll start ranting ... kate is well served by this play .. the quality of the experience as theatre is absolutely dependent upon the skills and probably experience of the actress on the stage ... |
|
|
|
Post by Judy on Jan 1, 2008 17:29:56 GMT -5
i just looked around for evidence of this young Rochester actress's experience .. the key word here is .. she appears young. i'd be wondering whether she could carry this off .... as with many one woman - tribute shows as this one the success absolutely depends on the acting cajones of the woman on stage. ... with this actress ... i have no way to advise ... i suspect her strength in this will be precisely the opposite of what i have experienced with mulgrew in 2003 and feldshuh a few weeks ago ... these middle aged actresses excelled as the hepburn in the 1980s .. and a bit more challenged by playing nhepburn in the 1930s. its the mature hepburn who had my heart in the two productions i have seen and carries the heart of the show .. so ... just my two cents. to everyone who has expressed concerns about the show and who haven't seen it: believe me when i say that the play on the page is respectful and honors kate. now you want to talk about disrespect ... talk to us garland fans about plays and one-woman shows that have been done in recent years or ... egad .. the wainwright travesty that traveled the world in 2006 and 2007 is having prolonged life on CD and DVD just now ... yikes. and even worse, wainwright's press over the past two years, commenting on garland. but i'll save that for another thread if appropriate ... i'll start ranting ... kate is well served by this play .. the quality of the experience as theatre is absolutely dependent upon the skills and probably experience of the actress on the stage ... I disagree completely about Tea at Five. I found the play on the page to be a cheap bit of dime-store psychology masquerading as a play - and a bit of an insult to both Kate's memory and the memory of her parents. The fault lies in Lombardo's "play" and not in Mulgrew's performance (she's the only one I've seen in it). Although...to my way of thinking, she was not entirely without fault. I saw her do it in NY and then later in Boston. In NY when she turned around as older Kate in the second act, the audience gasped at the resemblance. I'll give her that. But by the time she'd gotten to Boston, her performance had deteriorated into a series of proclamations and hiccups and tics that turned Kate Hepburn into a cartoon. She is/was not helped by the play. The dramatic license he took, attempting to get into her head visavis her relationship with her father, was simplistic to say the least and a total guess on his part. Problem with this kind of "entertainment" is that it is accepted as truth by the general public who only know the talking points of her life, if that. Is it the worst thing ever written about Kate? No. That honor belongs elsewhere. Does it do her a disservice? Maybe not - because it's really pretty inconsequential; just a blip on the radar. But I totally disagree that she was well served by this thing. The quality of the theatre experience ideally should be a marriage of performance and material. Here the material lets everyone down, especially Hepburn fans. I would never advise anyone not to see it. I say, go and see for yourself. I think Kate's a great subject for a one-woman play. But this trifle is not it. And a great biography. But judging by the revisionist history out there that seems to be in vogue at this moment in time, it probably won't come in my lifetime. Tea at Five totally lacks substance, subtlty or style. And that's a real shame since its subject possessed all of those qualities and more. |
|
|
|
Post by martha on Jan 1, 2008 19:43:29 GMT -5
alright then. i certainly respect the intensity of your reactions, judy. i somehow didn't come out with these same reactions ... and its terrible that mulgrew' s performance deteriorated in the way that you describe.
i guess i didn't feel that the script of this play was "dime store psychology" .. i heard katharine (in the play) telling stories that katharine herself writes about in her own memoirs... how they were linked together in the theatregoer's mind .. how they seemed to resonate ... might have had some independent effect for you. i don't know .. i was watching the performance from some remove .. each of these performers. i didn't expect them to capture the magic of kate hepburn .. just to allude to the stories.
and that i thought was achieved. i didn't hear any of the kate character say "and that's why i ..." ..
but there we are.
the best theatre i've ever seen? oh my gosh, no. an introduction that is remarkably absent mis-information for such theatrical creations? yes. this worked for me. but not a role for a novice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jan 1, 2008 19:53:51 GMT -5
i just looked around for evidence of this young Rochester actress's experience .. the key word here is .. she appears young. i'd be wondering whether she could carry this off .... as with many one woman - tribute shows as this one the success absolutely depends on the acting cajones of the woman on stage. ... with this actress ... i have no way to advise ... i suspect her strength in this will be precisely the opposite of what i have experienced with mulgrew in 2003 and feldshuh a few weeks ago ... these middle aged actresses excelled as the hepburn in the 1980s .. and a bit more challenged by playing nhepburn in the 1930s. its the mature hepburn who had my heart in the two productions i have seen and carries the heart of the show .. so ... just my two cents. to everyone who has expressed concerns about the show and who haven't seen it: believe me when i say that the play on the page is respectful and honors kate. now you want to talk about disrespect ... talk to us garland fans about plays and one-woman shows that have been done in recent years or ... egad .. the wainwright travesty that traveled the world in 2006 and 2007 is having prolonged life on CD and DVD just now ... yikes. and even worse, wainwright's press over the past two years, commenting on garland. but i'll save that for another thread if appropriate ... i'll start ranting ... kate is well served by this play .. the quality of the experience as theatre is absolutely dependent upon the skills and probably experience of the actress on the stage ... I disagree completely about Tea at Five. I found the play on the page to be a cheap bit of dime-store psychology masquerading as a play - and a bit of an insult to both Kate's memory and the memory of her parents. The fault lies in Lombardo's "play" and not in Mulgrew's performance (she's the only one I've seen in it). Although...to my way of thinking, she was not entirely without fault. I saw her do it in NY and then later in Boston. In NY when she turned around as older Kate in the second act, the audience gasped at the resemblance. I'll give her that. But by the time she'd gotten to Boston, her performance had deteriorated into a series of proclamations and hiccups and tics that turned Kate Hepburn into a cartoon. She is/was not helped by the play. The dramatic license he took, attempting to get into her head visavis her relationship with her father, was simplistic to say the least and a total guess on his part. Problem with this kind of "entertainment" is that it is accepted as truth by the general public who only know the talking points of her life, if that. Is it the worst thing ever written about Kate? No. That honor belongs elsewhere. Does it do her a disservice? Maybe not - because it's really pretty inconsequential; just a blip on the radar. But I totally disagree that she was well served by this thing. The quality of the theatre experience ideally should be a marriage of performance and material. Here the material lets everyone down, especially Hepburn fans. I would never advise anyone not to see it. I say, go and see for yourself. I think Kate's a great subject for a one-woman play. But this trifle is not it. And a great biography. But judging by the revisionist history out there that seems to be in vogue at this moment in time, it probably won't come in my lifetime. Tea at Five totally lacks substance, subtlty or style. And that's a real shame since its subject possessed all of those qualities and more. I will add that I agree with every word Judy wrote about Tea at Five. It's a cheap attempt at psychoanalyzing Katharine Hepburn plus it insinuates things about Hepburn, her family, and Tracy for which there is no proof. Yes, Mulgrew looked like the older Hepburn BUT the facial tics and twitchings she utilized in her performance were cringe-inducing. Mulgrew didn't act so much as she impersonated Hepburn with the help of beautiful wigs, perfect clothing, and a facial resemblance to Hepburn. I saw Mulgrew in the role twice with a gap of three months between performances. The second time around, she'd dropped some of the facial gyrations BUT the material itself was still not worthy of or true to Hepburn. His next "victim" is Tallulah Bankhead in his play "Looped" which is trying to see the light of day. |
|
Hepburner
Full Member
'Enemies are so stimulating'
Posts: 180
|
Post by Hepburner on Jan 1, 2008 19:54:55 GMT -5
Ha! Amber!
thou hast slain me!
"my Tracy Samantha Lord standard"
I squealed in rapture when I read that.
So perfect.
I'm quite the same.
I still refuse to see The Aviator. I had it bought for me as a gift, and I hadn't the heart to tell the person who bought it that I just can't bring myself to watch it.
"Tracy sets exceptionally high standards for herself, that's all. And people aren't always apt to live up to them"
|
|
|
|
Post by martha on Jan 1, 2008 20:03:23 GMT -5
It's a cheap attempt at psychoanalyzing Katharine Hepburn plus it insinuates things about Hepburn, her family, and Tracy for which there is no proof. i would be interested (truly .. i'm trying to make sense of this play and these reactions to it) .. in your statements about the play insinuating things about kate and family and tracy ... that are problematic and possibly not true. which things? and i'm not trying to be provocative, believe me. I want to know what the opinion is of fellow lovers of hepburn .. folks who like me have read what she wrote and other have written over the years (yes, wide quality of product there), and have seen recorded interviews. ... if people don't want to discuss this stuff, that's fine too. i'm the new kid here. but it seems that this is perhaps the BEST place to have this kind of discussion. energized and passionate .. and informed ... parsing of this current production and our understanding of the life it purports to represent. |
|
|
|
Post by Judy on Jan 1, 2008 21:19:04 GMT -5
It's a cheap attempt at psychoanalyzing Katharine Hepburn plus it insinuates things about Hepburn, her family, and Tracy for which there is no proof. i would be interested (truly .. i'm trying to make sense of this play and these reactions to it) .. in your statements about the play insinuating things about kate and family and tracy ... that are problematic and possibly not true. which things? and i'm not trying to be provocative, believe me. I want to know what the opinion is of fellow lovers of hepburn .. folks who like me have read what she wrote and other have written over the years (yes, wide quality of product there), and have seen recorded interviews. ... if people don't want to discuss this stuff, that's fine too. i'm the new kid here. but it seems that this is perhaps the BEST place to have this kind of discussion. energized and passionate .. and informed ... parsing of this current production and our understanding of the life it purports to represent. I don’t think you were trying to provoke anything, Martha. You just stated your view and since I have another, I thought I’d chime in with mine. I wish I had a copy of the play so I could cite chapter and verse of why I find it so irritating and objectionable. Since I don’t, I’ll simply say that I found it to be totally lacking in Kate’s “voice.” For a play that’s in essence one long monologue, his inability to make the words SOUND like they came out of her mouth is a problem. And that problem becomes compounded for me when the words the character says seem so clumsily written. I’ve read fan fictions that got her “voice” better. I don’t know if this thing is really solvable in a one-person play, but the exposition aspect of it saps it of all its inherent drama, I think. And his exposition leaves much to be desired. Where on earth, for instance did he get that story of Dr. Hepburn and his cold hand on her face (or was it on Kit’s; I can’t remember) when they were transporting Tom’s body? The way it’s written and performed, one feels a tremendous anger from Kate towards him. The answer is, he made it up. In all my reading and investigating about Kate these last 40 years, I have never heard her utter anything but feelings of love and respect for her parents. Does that mean that she never butted heads with her father? Likely not. But Lombardo chose this particularly sensitive scene to imply a heretofore hidden chink in the Hepburn family armor; that there was trouble in paradise, and that that trouble went far deeper than any of us know. It's an implication of a deep wound to her for which there is absolutely no evidence. I don’t mean Tom’s death; I mean this very particular incident where she says how cold and unfeeling her father was. Another thing I remember is minor but it had to do with her telling the story of marching over to Sondheim’s place to demand he stop playing. She says something like “I think musical theatre is ridiculous and anyone I know who breaks into song every ten minutes is committed.” Again, dialogue made to make her sound campy/bitchy, but dialogue that just does not ring true to my ears. Not to mention the fact that I don’t believe that anyone who was friends with Noel Coward and Irving Berlin could be so averse to the form. Even in the brief comment she made to Cavett about studying voice and learning about singing when she did COCO shows a respect for the form – even though it may not have been one she was overly fond of. But NOBODY KNOWS. So it just seems cooler or more hip or flip or something for Lombardo to have her snap out some sarcastic comment. This Sondheim incident was minor, to be sure, but is one of the times I remember where my ears pricked up at how foreign she sounded. I remember Lombardo’s version of the story of Dr. Hepburn taking the shotgun to the stranger on the beach at Fenwick. Boy does it ever differ from Kanin’s version. Lombardo’s version is devoid of any humor, any sense of self-deprecation (and knowledge). Instead, he uses it as a sword to skewer Tracy, following the story with him yelling at her not to interrupt him and to stop talking like she had a feather up her ass….which then leads into her talking – again, sounding NOTHING like Kate – about how they had their problems. Now how, you ask, the hell do I know what Kate would have sounded like? It’s easy. Just read ME and you can see how Lombardo missed the boat on so many occasions. There was so much more but right now I can’t come up with anything else. But this discussion has made me want to buy the play. Not to change my mind, but to confirm my opinion of it. So...in the end. I’m not trying to provoke anything either. I just think the play stinks. And I believe that she has been given such a raw deal since her death. She was wise, though. She KNEW that would happen, and it did. This play and subsequent books just confirm what she knew would happen. So thank God, I say, for Kanin’s book and the African Queen book and for ME. If they didn’t tell the WHOLE truth, so be it. I trust them far more than I do Lombardo’s truth…or others who write about her without an ounce of respect or affection. In my view. Judy |
|
)... no idea about Tea at Five though, I think I should have a look if the CD is somewhere over here or at home ;D.
In order to login - click at the upper right corner - use your name from the board and your password and it should be all right. If not - please let me know and I will try to help!
Just stumbled upon this interesting board.. Does anyone have any video interviews with KH?? Or maybe transcripts of them? I´ve been especially looking for the full version of the famous Cavett one forever and ever... 