Comments on: Critical Mass: Why the Cate Blanchett Streetcar Sucks (Or Doesn’t)

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:06:21 +0000

I appreciate seeing back and forth between critics, except that one (the one who isn't South-ren) is so much superior just by being mediorcre.

By: Trey Graham

Trey Graham — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:03:32 +0000

@ Glen: Don't make me send you to bed without supper.

By: Trey Graham

Trey Graham — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:03:14 +0000

@Todd: Funny you should mention. Last week, I wound up having the conversation above about *that* production. I was at dinner with a woman who runs a foundation that gives big bucks to a bunch of D.C. theaters, and she cited that production as one of a handful that made her quit going to Arena entirely. I have to confess, I kinda loved it. It was weird, granted, and it didn't entirely work. But I thought it was cool that the director -- who apparently really *was* one of those Euro types who don't know the play at all -- nevertheless understood that under all that frou-frou, Blanche is kind of a bully. Understood it, and made it the organizing principle of the production. Now: How do we know the director really, truly didn't get the play, at least at first? Because we hear that in an early rehearsal, the Mad Hungarian waved a disdainful hand and said: "What is this 'kindness of strangers' business? We cut that!"

By: Todd Metrokin

Todd Metrokin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:23:18 +0000

Wonderful format, you should do it more often! Not having seen it, I can't comment on the performance in question but Bob's last comment on appreciating the Arena staging... what?? I've never been so close to walking out of a play. And that includes a Junior High performance of Happy Days.

By: Glen Weldon

Glen Weldon — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:18:13 +0000

Late to the party, and haven't seen the show, but just wanted to note that I'm glad y'all get a chance to see what my inbox looks like every week.

Isn't it kind of awesome when Mom and Dad fight?

By: Jon Palmer Claridge

Jon Palmer Claridge — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:43:12 +0000

Sorry, score one for Mondello. That balances his misunderstanding of Amadeus at Olney some years back. . .

By: Chris Klimek

Chris Klimek — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:52:18 +0000

Don't mind me, Gentlemen. I'm just eavesdropping over here. If you made this a regular feature of the blog, I'd never miss an installment. On the whole, I think Trey's assessment of the show as "clear" is accurate, and I don't believe the production suffered for a want of subtlety. What are we deprived of if we're shown how frail Blanche is from the opening moments? Admittedly, it shifts our sympathies towards her right away, but that's legit choice, I think. I was expecting the Ullman-Blanchett collaboration to produce a less conventional take. Though I felt completely invested the entire time, nothing specific happened that surprised me until the final scene. (I'll cop to having overlooked the significance of the flower-lady entirely.) Maybe the fact that Ullman and Blanchett are coming from other theatrical traditions made them more reluctant to muck around with an American classic than they might've been. So, you guys were sympatico in your reaction to Joel Edgerton's Stanley, then?

By: Trey Graham

Trey Graham — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:29:03 +0000

Heh. Bob has lobbed one last volley, now that he's back from his afternoon movie screening. In case you're wondering, there's a backstory about how much I enjoyed Patrick Stewart's Othello at the Shakespeare Theatre back in 1997. I enjoyed it so much that for what I'm pretty sure is the only time in my entire career, I left at intermission.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:17:18 +0000

oops...apologies for my shameful neglect to spell-check before posting. "privileged" is a word that proves to be a bane of my writing prowess.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:13:40 +0000

Interesting debate. I have yet to see this production and am unable to contribute my own opinions just yet(will see a couple of the New York performances), but my colleague, who is also a theatre director and has directed a couple of productions of this play himself not to mention has seen it staged many times, told me he was perplexed by Ullmann's & Blanchett's choices but felt they fit within in the fabric of their interpretation and the goal of what they wanted to achieve. He loved it and thought it was very powerful. I was, however, priveledged to attend the conversation with Blanchett and Emily Mann also remarked on the unique but ingenuitive exploration of the material. She explained how it moved her to tears by the end and then proceeded to inform us that she is not who cries easily. Who knows what I'll think, but judging from these two very experienced individuals involved in theatre my thoughts will more than likely be more aligned to theirs. Also, I feel theatre (and this is also what Cate touched upon) is a medium in which liberties are embraced and even if the directors and actors experiment with a different mood of the piece or a distinguishably disparate take on a scene that it should be critiqued on how it's executed according to the goals of the director, not how literal or not literal they performed the material. Theatre is meant to be performed differently, otherwise we receive a monochromatic production and there's no room for breath or originality.