Tea at 5

[Judy]

martha said:

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.

Just remembered a couple of the most infuriating “facts” in the play.

As I recall, Lombardo has Kate saying that John being born deaf was caused by Spencer Tracy having had gonorrhea. Lombardo clearly took this from that other font of bile and misinformation, Barbara Leaming, who wrote that Tracy told Orson Welles that he’d had gonorrhea. Aside from the highly unlikely fact that he would have told this to someone he did not know, like Welles, there’s the fact that at the time of this claim by Leaming, Tracy’s daughter refuted it and a friend wrote to the NIH and simply asked them: did gonorrhea in a parent cause birth defects? She was told that it did not and that this was known at the time in the 20’s, so that if he did indeed have it, he would have known that it did not contribute to John’s deafness.

But that’s really mute, since there is no proof. Only a claim from Leaming that Welles was told this by Tracy. Welles, of course, was dead by the time Leaming’s book was published and proof went poof.

But what did that matter to Lombardo? It made for good copy, so he took it and actually had the balls to have “Kate Hepburn” turn to an audience and say blithely that Spencer Tracy had gonorrhea.

The mind boggles.

The other mind-numbing presumptuous account I remember was the moment during the play where the audience is left with a sort of cryptic impression that at one point she had been pregnant by Tracy and aborted the pregnancy. That’s similar to the lie in The Aviator that has Hughes rescuing intimate photos of them. It feeds a prurient interest that to my way of thinking does them a complete disservice. He should have his dramatic license revoked!

I’m sure if I had the play I could go on and on. But I think I’ve made my point. So, clearly, we disagree on Tea at Five.

It’s not that all of the stories were fabrications. Clearly she wrote about many of them. It’s how they were interpreted by Lombardo, how his lack of talent as a dramatist sucked the life out of them and how he just made up the rest – and managed turn her into a humorless, colorless person - which she most definitely was not - in the process.

I'll be the first to admit that I could not watch this play with any sort of distance - or remove, as you say. But being close to the subject doesn't mean that one loses the ability to judge it fairly as a work of drama or make criticism of it any less valid.

So...I'll stop boring everyone with this now.

On to happier thoughts.....Oh, David...your sock's burning....

[martha]

judy:

i don't recall either of those two details (gonorrhea or abortion) in the play as played two weeks ago in the chicago area. perhaps the script has been altered ...

i think review of the script as actually being played would be useful. at some point. but not from memory.

and for the record between us (as we're just getting to know each other here) ... those two details if i heard them from the stage would infuriate me too.

[Judy]

martha said:

judy:

i don't recall either of those two details (gonorrhea or abortion) in the play as played two weeks ago in the chicago area. perhaps the script has been altered ...

i think review of the script as actually being played would be useful. at some point. but not from memory.

and for the record between us (as we're just getting to know each other here) ... those two details if i heard them from the stage would infuriate me too.

The only reason I had trekked to Boston to see it again was because I'd heard that changes had been made and I'd hoped that they included excising those two parts. But they were still there. That was a couple of years ago now, though. And with this latest incarnation, I'd also read that things were tightened and changed. So maybe you and I really saw quite different plays. Still, even without those most offending passages, I cannot "hear" Kate in this play at all. Her stories, yes. But her? No. Just didn't do it for me.

[martha]

here's another twist on this discussion ... i wonder if those who know personalities well are EVER happy with similar biographical cinematic or theatrical treatments of the object of their affection? a few examples with original run info from the Internet Broadway Database (ibdb.com) and the Lucille Lortell database for off broadway :

Master Class [Original, Play] [the conceit: callas giving a singing 'master class' at julliard]
Starring: Zoe Caldwell [Maria Callas]
Nov 5, 1995 - Jun 29, 1997

Lillian [Original, Play, Solo] [not sure what the dramatic concept is/was for this one, but wish i'd seen it]
Starring: Zoe Caldwell [Lillian Hellman]
Jan 16, 1986 - Feb 23, 1986

The Property Known as Garland [the conceit: garland backstage during her final singing engagement in march 1969, in copenhagen, denmark]
Actors' Playhouse
Adrienne Barbeau Judy Garland
Opening Date: March 23, 2006
Closing Date: May 21, 2006

Vita & Virginia [the relationship between these woman through their letters]
Union Square Theatre
Eileen Atkins Virginia Woolf
Vanessa Redgrave Vita Sackville-West
Opening Date: November 16, 1994
Closing Date: March 19, 1995

Full Gallop [diana vreeland, fashion arbiter, chatting on ...]
Manhattan Theatre Club
Mary Louise Wilson Diana Vreeland
Opening Date: September 26, 1995
Closing Date: November 19, 1995

-----

just an illustration that this is not a new genre. perhaps 'tea at five' is especially heinous. perhaps those who know much about the lives of the other women portrayed in these other pieces of theatre have many issues with fact and fiction as they are presented on stage. all of these shows in performance are dependent upon the skills and delicacy of the performers who opt to take on the lives of these larger than life personalities. just some thoughts. any one seen any of these shows or read them (i've read several) ... ?? have any ideas about the challenges of attempting to do this kind of 'one woman show based on well known personality' kind of thing?

p.s. 'tea at five' is available from samuel french publishers (as is 'the property known as garland' ... egad. i've just ordered both).

[Judy]

martha said:

here's another twist on this discussion ... i wonder if those who know personalities well are EVER happy with similar biographical cinematic or theatrical treatments of the object of their affection? a few examples with original run info from the Internet Broadway Database (ibdb.com) and the Lucille Lortell database for off broadway :

Master Class [Original, Play] [the conceit: callas giving a singing 'master class' at julliard]
Starring: Zoe Caldwell [Maria Callas]
Nov 5, 1995 - Jun 29, 1997

Lillian [Original, Play, Solo] [not sure what the dramatic concept is/was for this one, but wish i'd seen it]
Starring: Zoe Caldwell [Lillian Hellman]
Jan 16, 1986 - Feb 23, 1986

The Property Known as Garland [the conceit: garland backstage during her final singing engagement at the theatre in copenhage, denmark]
Actors' Playhouse
Adrienne Barbeau Judy Garland
Opening Date: March 23, 2006
Closing Date: May 21, 2006

Vita & Virginia [the relationship between these woman through their letters]
Union Square Theatre
Eileen Atkins Virginia Woolf
Vanessa Redgrave Vita Sackville-West
Opening Date: November 16, 1994
Closing Date: March 19, 1995

Full Gallop [diana vreeland, fashion arbiter, chatting on ...]
Manhattan Theatre Club
Mary Louise Wilson Diana Vreeland
Opening Date: September 26, 1995
Closing Date: November 19, 1995

-----

just an illustration that this is not a new genre. perhaps 'tea at five' is especially heinous. perhaps those who know much about the lives of the other women portrayed in these other pieces of theatre have many issues with fact and fiction as they are presented on stage. all of these shows in performance are dependent upon the skills and delicacy of the performers who opt to take on the lives of these larger than life personalities. just some thoughts. any one seen any of these shows or read them (i've read several) ... ?? have any ideas about the challenges of attempting to do this kind of 'one woman show based on well known personality' kind of thing?

Let me try another tack. Leaving aside the offense I took at much of the play because of my closeness to the subject - I STILL say that though a performer can be admired for pulling something off - and one can say that about ALL of the actors who appeared in the shows you cite (though I did not see Caldwell's Lillian nor Barbeau's Judy, Caldwell isn't even a question for me - she's always brilliant - and Barbeau got respectable reviews) - I need more than that to be satisfied dramatically. If the writing is inferior, if the structure is deadly - as I think it is in Tea at Five - it will fail for me.

For me, it HAS to be on the page. And Terrence McNally and Eileen Atkins can write rings around Lombardo. They made their characters live - whether or not they were entirely faithful to realilty - as did Mary Louise Wilson and Mark Hampton in Full Gallop. Lombardo - to me - made Kate Hepburn dull - possibly the worst of his offenses. Bo-ah. Bo-ah. Bo-ah.

Master Class and Vita and Virginia were not one-woman shows, but there may be a problem that's just inherent in the one-woman/man show. Since there's no one else to "talk" to the writing could tend to be too much exposition and not enough drama. Although, having just written this I have to take it back. Because there have been other one-person shows that have been sensational. Take Mercedes Ruehl as Peggy Guggenheim in Lanie Robertson's Woman Before Glass. Now, I only knew the talking points of Guggenheim's life, so there may have been many inaccuracies in the play. But as a play, it was well-written, evocative of her time and interesting in many ways. And that didn't happen - for me - with Tea.

[martha]

fabulous judy! i hadn't put together that this bryn mawr alumnae bulletin piece (that i had read before) was by you.

and you're 'an' editor or 'the" editor of playbill?? my my my.

i write for theatre here in chicago, and am a dramaturg. so much in common, so little time.

and then, there's kate.

[martha]

sam said:

Barbeau got respectable reviews).

but barbeau's piece about garland (written by her husband for her) caused [and continues to cause] as much of a stir among many garland fans as 'tea at five' has for some .. and for many of the same reasons perhaps. sourcing ... choice of details ... debatable or unverifiable items .. and whether or not the piece was/is inherently dramatic. does it smack of taking advantage? perhaps yes. barbeau also received some not very good reviews too.

and its this reaction by garland fans (and i am one .. full disclosure once again) that indicates to me that there might be themes to explore across these pieces.

[Judy]

martha said:

sam said:

Barbeau got respectable reviews).

but barbeau's piece about garland (written by her husband for her) caused [and continues to cause] as much of a stir among many garland fans as 'tea at five' has for some .. and for many of the same reasons perhaps. sourcing ... choice of details ... debatable or unverifiable items .. and whether or not the piece was/is inherently dramatic. does it smack of taking advantage? perhaps yes. barbeau also received some not very good reviews too.

and its this reaction by garland fans (and i am one .. full disclosure once again) that indicates to me that there might be themes to explore across these pieces.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't commenting on the PLAY because I know that had many, many detractors among Garland fans. And I suspect they were spot on. The comment I made about Barbeau had to do with things I'd heard about her performance (as I said, I did not see it), since in your previous post about Tea at Five, you seemed to stress that the performer can carry these things ("all of these shows in performance are dependent upon the skills and delicacy of the performers who opt to take on the lives of these larger than life personalities"), while I was saying that they really cannot if they have nothing to carry.....So, yeah, I know about all the hoo-ha that went up when it appeared. Don't remember specifics but know it had to do with the very same type of thing I objected to in Lombardo.

[babytheleopard]

I saw Mulgrew in Tea at Five in Boston about 3 years ago, and I actually enjoyed it. I didn't think I was going to, because I had heard some people were unhappy about it and I didn't think I would enjoy Mulgrew portraying Kath. But my dad got me tickets to it as a Christmas gift, so we went to go see it and I actually enjoyed it. I was never bored and she really did a good job. However, her portrayal of a younger Kate wasn't nearly as good as her older Kate. The second half of the show I would say was much better than the first, but she really did give a good effort as a younger Kate. I'm glad I went to see it now, I found it to be enjoyable. However, I would have to say that Cate Blanchett plays a better younger Kate.

[martha]

ah more Teat at Five. A pal of mine in LA just attended an autograph show a weekend or so ago and scored me a few items, a few for gifts. Tippi Hedren and Barbara Edens were there, for example. Another person there was Stephanie Zimbalist, who was "doing a play about Hepburn", my pal reported. The autographed photos came in today's mail along with an advertising postcard for this play that he picked up on site.

Of course .. its Tea at Five. Oct 13-Nov 14. Stephanie Zimbalist. Now, I suspect the play hasn't improved with age .. but I'm kinda intrigued by the idea of this particular actress taking on this role. I'll hunt down reviews. It's at the Falcon Theatre ... www.falcontheatre.com.

[charliesgirl7681]

jeez Barbara and Steph autos, soooo jealous!

I actually like the idea of Stephanie playing Kate, for me it makes sense. I'm curious what people will say of her in the role.

[moonriver]

Just, T have seen the notice about this play today when I was searching Kate and Kathy (Kate´s niece) photos.

I meet this article where Kathy Houghton gives her opinion about play...

articles.sfgate.com/2005-06-01/entertainment/17376901_1_hepburn-s-life-spencer-tracy-kate-hepburn

Let me translate this expresion to spanish because it sounds very "strong"

"Si mi tía la hubiese visto, se hubiese cortado las venas"

There isn´t one best expresion for desagree.
I think that Katharine Hepburn looked after too much her home life for she is not happy with this idea.
Now, Katharine Hepburn was and is one personality too much public. People want to know more about her.
It´s one interesting contadiction because the most things waiting for Kate, it was be famous.
Nobody now who was Kate Hepburn in fact and it can be one excuse for speculate.
It happens that when somebody use the name of real person in one fiction play (or whatever) , people thinks that play talks about "real person". It is atomatic!

Sorry for my english again. It´s horrible! The logic of spanish language is very diferent the logic of english.

Serena, tú di que sí, que es todo verdad: todo lo que digo ja, ja, ja

For me is very dificult think in english. I hope that it can understand!

Some posters of "Té a las cinco" . Only for curiosity

Credits
www.totallykate.com/teafive/teapasad.html
www.katharinehepburntheater.org/blog/tag/tea-at-five/
www.royalspringtheatricalsociety.org/Tea_at_Five.html

[martha]

We may have multiple threads on this play. (And now, as other threads reveal, I can add the adjective 'dire" .. as in "this dire play" ...) ...

So .. I'll add here for the record the Playbill posting about tonight's benefit performance ... Charles Busch in drag as Kate in "Tea at Five".

www.playbill.com/news/article/156863-Charles-Busch-Is-Katharine-Hepburn-in-Nov-28-Staged-Reading-of-Tea-at-Five

You'll note from the press info quoted in the Playbill piece, it may be that Busch will be performing ONLY Act II, Kate in 1983 ... but who the heck knows.

Sigh.

The text:

Charles Busch Is Katharine Hepburn in Nov. 28 Staged Reading of Tea at Five
By Andrew Gans
28 Nov 2011

Charles Busch as Katharine Hepburn

Four Things Productions presents a one-night-only staged reading of Matthew Lombardo's one-woman show, Tea at Five, starring playwright-actor Charles Busch (The Divine Sister, The Tale of the Allergist’s Wife) as Katharine Hepburn, Nov. 28 at the Lucille Lortel Theatre.

The evening, directed by Rob Ruggiero, benefits The Ali Forney Center. Carl Siciliano will introduce the event.

Tea at Five, press notes state, is "an intimate look at Katharine Hepburn, at home, in her Fenwick estate in Old Saybrook, Connecticut. The play takes place in 1983 after Hepburn was injured in a car crash. The accident affords the now-legendary star an opportunity to reflect on her turbulent childhood, the triumphs and failures of her career and her heart-breaking romance with Spencer Tracy."

The design team includes Katherine Carr (wig styling), Ben Hagen (lighting design), Peter Hurley (photography), Nathan Johnson (make-up), Charles Lapointe (wig design), Michael Pilipski (props), Jennifer Rogers (stage manager), Shannon Slaton (sound design) and Kelly Stimac (wardrobe stylist).

Tea at Five was first produced by Hartford Stage and thereafter produced by Daryl Roth, David Gersten, Paul Morer, Michael Filerman, Amy Nederlander and Scott E. Nederlander at the Promenade Theatre, Off-Broadway in New York City.
Tickets, priced $150 (including the post-performance reception with the cast), are available at web.ovationtix.com/trs/pe/9345005, or by calling [phone] or by visiting the Lucille Lortel Theater Box Office (121 Christopher Street).

For more information, visit www.teaatfive.org.

[martha]

all of the "reviews" (which are more mash notes, because this was benefit after all for a good cause) seem to represent the play as Act II -- all set in 1983. Either Lombardo rewrote for this reading or Busch performed only the second act. Interesting that its not mentioned ....

one account: www.theaterlife.com/node/6424
a second account: www.jeffandwill.com/2011/11/29/tea-at-five-with-charles-busch/