Review - The Glass Menagerie
Production: The Glass Menagerie
By: Tennessee Williams
Director: Lucy Cruddas
Date: 22nd - 25th April 2009
Cast:
Amanda Wingfield - Sue Curran
Laura Wingfield - Naomi Savage
Tom Wingfield - Matthew Lambert
Jim O’Connor - Matt Bird
Here's what Garth Jones, Cheshire Theatre Guild's Adjudicator thought of the production:
Directed by LUCY CRUDDAS
GENERAL:
I had been thinking for some time as to why, when the planned “Stepping Out” had to be postponed, the completely different type of play “The Glass Menagerie” was chosen as its replacement. That was answered quite simply by the Director. Lucy had been chosen as director of “Stepping Out” in part because of her tap dancing expertise. When that could not be performed this season, she chose “The Glass Menagerie” for the simple reason that if she could not direct the first play, this play was her next choice and a favourite play of hers. This was an excellent reason and that enthusiasm and passion for the play came out strongly in her production. She had also clearly inspired others – the technical team, the cast, for instance – with a similar enthusiasm.
The programme has extensive and helpful notes on Tennessee Williams and this play, which I really enjoyed, despite the typos with apostrophes! I will not in this introduction even try to emulate any of those informative notes except to endorse Lucy’s comments on the play and its characters, their struggle to get away from harsh realities, and in particular the perceptive insight about
“the beautiful poetic style in which it is written and the complexity of the characters, who all live in their own fantasy worlds”.
To make those two last features a reality is the real challenge for the players and director. After that, there are the tasks of the playing of humour, the accent, the idiom and sentiment, without which no production of this elusive yet rewarding play can succeed. It was a huge challenge then for someone to take on as a first play, by such a complex writer.
PRESENTATION:
Stage Manager: PHIL ASHBY-CROWE
Setting – GORDON HAMLIN, PHIL ASHBY_CROWE, LUCY CRUDDAS, MAUREEN MELVILLE, KELLY KITCHEN, CLAIRE PROLE, BEN BRUNSDON
Properties: PHIL ASHBY-CROWE
Furnishings: LUCY and BERYL DESMOND at The Chase
These are the skilled team who collaborated to make the whole setting, furnishings and props work in the style suggested by the playwright and adopted by the director. All deserve credit, especially as the props and furnishings were crucial in creating the location and period. Lucy and Beryl at The Chase did well here with some magnificent yet appropriate pieces – the art deco lamp in Act Two, the victrola, the tables and chairs, one of which was deep enough to be a commode, a chaise longue style sofa and the period coat/ mirror stand at the doorway. There were pictures on the matt finished walls, and on the wall beyond the arch, giving perspective. There were clothes on the line on stage right which balanced the solidly constructed fire escape on stage left and added to the faded location and the impression of tenements and alleys. That was a feat of construction as was the walled set itself and the brick walls at the extreme sides of the theatre, binding it all together. Stage manager, Phil, was also in charge of props – the crockery, the cushions, glasses, a candlestick telephone, vases, jonquils, cigarettes and, of course, the free standing ash-tray, the annual, and, of course, the idea of hanging the glass ornaments in such an interesting shape. He had suspended the picture of the father and the shoe-boxes symbolising work beyond at the Continental Shoemakers. This added to the information whilst not being realistic – again in the style suggested by the writer. And he ensured it all flowed well and offstage props were ready to bring out on cue.
So there was no attempt at a transparent screen wall - the wall and door were well suggested by the cutaway entrance - and no title slides – with the advantages and disadvantages outlined by the author! It was all a good detailed and impressive set, far less fragmentary than it could have been but with its two level rooms and its fire-escape level providing a good area for the director to use.
Well done, all!
LIGHTING GORDON HAMLIN
For this there was a lot of precise cueing needed to co-ordinate effects with the lighting and no doubt the new lighting system mentioned in the programme gave Gordon just what he needed for this play. Certainly the cross fading from fire escape to room (dim yet warm) and from room to spotlights – either upstage for the telephone or downstage for major soliloquies – was accomplished well. The latter also had a gobo effect which did manage to put a shadow across the face of Amanda in particular, slightly lessening her impact. And was it my eyes getting used to the light or did the levels occasionally creep up a little to lighten up faces? The lighting of the glass menagerie was nothing short of genius – they sparkled and were bright and appealing – just the right effect. And there were the bright letters of the Paradise dance hall and the ambient lighting to accompany the music as well as the dark when the power was cut off and the ensuing effect of candlelight.!
All appropriate and well cued stuff – good work from Gordon!
SOUND JAY REES
This play is interesting in terms of music and sound. The author writes a note about a single recurring tune “The Glass Menagerie” with almost impossible qualities of being “the surface vivacity of life with the underlying strain of immutable and inexpressible sorrow”.
Not perhaps the easiest of instructions! But this production did use music in a meaningful way, with religious music and the theme, coming in and fading as suggested, Violin, a song and music accompanying soliloquies or waltz music for nostalgic memories and helping to create emotional effects, dreamy, wistful and always distant. It worked well, with a good choice and effective almost precision cueing to maximum effect and with volume well controlled. As a nice contrast there was the music from the Paradise – loud enough yet distant enough to be across the alley. There were church bell chimes, a thunder clap and other atmospheric sounds, a period sounding doorbell (even with no door!) and other sounds to add location or mood. It was a big challenge yet one which was met superbly by Jay!
COSTUMES JULIE HOSKINS and ANN LLOYD
If the thirties is a difficult period for props it is certainly true of costumes! Not only was there the authenticity to care about but also the need to capture the essence of what are rather idiosyncratic characters! And, just to complicate matters further, the narrator is one of those characters speaking from the future, with the play and his part in it being a “memory play”. That calls also for some very quick changes of his costume, from young son to merchant seaman.
The suggestions in the text were not always slavishly followed but were in spirit the same. Laura was homely cardigan or printed dress, with an extravagantly elaborate lace long “party” dress – all emphasising her shyness and lack of confidence. Amanda was faded glory – neat and smart but old fashioned – the hat – or cheap, blossoming into an extravagantly white dress and flowers to recapture the rapture of her youth. Tom and Jim had suits (Tom had rather narrow lapels, Jim rather narrow trousers perhaps?) with braces and narrow ties all neatly suggestive of the period. The change to narrator was accomplished by pulling the woollen hat over the hair, sometimes removing Tom’s little trilby hat, and covering up cardigans with the seaman’s coat (all neatly hung on a peg in the wall stage left). It all looked natural yet in character and period and with the possible exception of the duality of Tom and his later persona, the hairstyles all complemented the costumes in a period style. It was well researched and nicely suited to character – good work from Julie and Ann!
THE GLASS MENAGERIE Made by STEVE WARD
Although part of the credit for the powerful effect of these glittering and fragile sculptures lay with Phil’s method of hanging them, there is no doubt that the delicate sculpture and glasswork by Steve was an essential part of the play and without it the production would have failed to create the effect it did. Great work, Steve!
PRODUCTION
This was a production full of the challenges and depending on unspoken feelings and the retreat of its characters into worlds of their own. To fashion a production which can meet the criteria expressed on the jacket of the penguin edition is no easy task,
“In its nostalgia for a lost world and its evocation of loneliness and lost love, it celebrates….the human need to dream”.
There was through the subtle mixture of evocative lighting – and candlelight, too - music and faded surroundings, together with subtle characterisations and good stage picture, a real sense of this world and the loneliness and the dreams to escape from it. The characters may, as the director said, be shut in their own fantasy worlds but they opened the lids clearly enough for the audience to understand them. There was a unity of style and careful discipline in the playing which marked out a successful production. It showed itself from the outset and never lost it even in the most discursive of scenes.
The other task is to be faithful to the period and to the setting, with appropriate characters, gestures and actions, as well as ensuring that all technical aspects support this. The technical skill in set building and ingenuity of effects helped the production considerably.
So in ACT ONE
The visual impact of the set was a great start, with its clean lines, interesting period furniture and props, and the areas – from alley with washing to fire escape to the two levels denoting rooms to the view off through the archway.
Tom as narrator established his role in a well delivered sentence,
“I give you truth in the pleasant guise of illusion”.
This fast paced, chatty but philosophical role, standing watching, with a cigarette often as not, or making a statement on the action before joining it, was a pattern repeated throughout. In every case it worked with power and authority.
Joining the action the three were well spaced at the table, with Amanda of course placed in the centre. Touches of humour despite the raised emotions were well delivered. Again the motif of the production was established with light on and music behind Amanda’s address to the audience,
“Carried my picture on him the night he died”.
There were shadows on her face but plenty of intensity in her reminiscences. Another motif was established as Laura moved down to the Glass Menagerie, with a good natural tone,
“Mother’s afraid I’m going to be an old maid”
Good pace and good changes of costume moved the action on, with a nice change of manner from the “wounded” Amanda,
“Deception? Deception?”
Laura retreated to the victrola, but which way does it wind- anti-clockwise? When downstage their faces were dimly lit but the levels rose to remedy this. Nice coming together as both sat on the sofa, with a full tone and clear diction from Amanda,
“Worn out records your father left as a painful reminder of him?”
There was such a well judged brittleness in Laura’s humorous delivery,
“I said pleurosis – he thought I said Blue Roses”.
Amanda has two pieces on the telephone selling subscriptions. It is never easy on stage to create the illusion of someone on the other end of the line but she did and she invested both pieces with exaggerated enthusiasm and humour, as here,
“Heavens, I think she hung up!”
Suitable clothes including grey check dressing gown were worn during the quarrel between Amanda and Tom. He was very animated, with pace and sharp delivery – “Continental Shoemakers” and a strong stress on “El Diablo”
The scene built to a good climax.
Tom searched for his dropped key and the door was opened by Laura – rightly there is never any attempt to mime a door. The chimes came in again as Amanda’s “Rise and Shine” caused some humour, as did Tom’s sharp response. Laura was given hat and crossover coat fro her outing for butter. Music well cued for the apology and Tom moved almost symbolically after it to sit upstage with Amanda, although they did perhaps stay there too long? Tom’s sarcasm was well developed,
“What gave her that idea?”
Amanda’s responses showed real feeling although the two arm gestures were a little overused. Tom as narrator, with the Paradise sign and sound of dance music, had a powerful poetic and pessimistic piece, delivered again with urgent pace and strong emphasis,
“like a chandelier and flooded the world with brief deceptive shadows”.
Amanda joined him on the steps, before both returned to the room, with the partly humorous, part desperate, quizzing about O’Connor. Both played with expression and quick cues, with just a few extraneous gestures. The music came in wistfully as she spoke of the little glass ornaments and Amanda showed the depth of her feelings as they wished on the moon!
Then in ACT TWO
Tom started it off with quality as he talked about Jim, with good descriptions and some neat quick shafts of comedy,
“You know, Shakespeare, I never thought of you as having folks”.
There are stylish additions such as the art deco lamp above the victrola. Laura had that air of fragility wrapped in the over-the-top dress made for her. The “gay deceivers” looked rather modern in texture/design. But Amanda, in spotlight and accompanying waltz music, was the most striking with Scarlet O’Hara style dress and hair as she indulged in memories. The jonquils fitted nicely in the vase upstage left. On the stairs Jim did have to turn rather sharply upstage to talk to Tom. But the exchange was good – brisk and full of energy. There was a nice climax in Tom’s
“I’m like my father. The bastard son of a bastard”.
Laura reacted well and the thunder clap as they said grace added a portentous note.
The lights went out on cue – Jim’s big laugh became more frequent. The candles were lit and the lighting mirrored this well. No food emphasised the theatrical convention but was set against a lot of other reality. The light adjusted well, as candelabra was well placed centre stage. The scene was well played by Jim and Laura – he keeping up the self centred talk whilst encouraging her and she gradually and shyly building up what is described as “the climax of her secret life”. He used the little standing ash-tray to deal with his cigarette. Laura had a real intensity and Jim’s projection grew as he built up the piece about “Democracy”. Positions were natural and made use of the centre stage, too. The unicorn was nicely established – a tone of wonder from Laura and strong and significant response from Jim,
“Aren’t they extinct in the modern world?”
The music from the dance hall was on cue – the mirror ball effect and the Sign certainly widened the scene but perhaps did not deepen it, diffusing the focus? Good reaction to the damaged unicorn with a very sensitive handling of the line,
“I’ll just imagine he had an operation…… to make him feel less freakish!”
She reacted nervously as he drew closer and his tone became more genuine and charged with feeling. It all built well to the kiss – held long enough – and his “Stumble-john” reaction. The rest was beautifully directed with her gradually moving from joy to silent pain and he from explanation of going steady to careless self centred statements about love. Despite the emotion there was no loss of pace and this was maintained effectively by Amanda as she learned the truth and reacted with polite manners but strong disappointment,
“O-o-h How nice”
There were good stage positions (although a little later Amanda had a slightly awkward squeeze past Laura to get to the door) and a build up well handled by Tom especially as he smashed his glass on the floor, leaving Amanda to comfort Laura. Wiiliams had left the strongest piece of poetic prose to the Narrator and Tom did well with it, moving from the prosaic
“I was fired for writing a poem on the lid of a shoe-box”
to the wonderful piece about the glass bottles in the perfume shop. There was a moving finish, as he said “Blow out your candles, Laura” and she did.
The spots for a “call” were awkward – an attempt not to break the mood.
ACTING
AMANDA WINGFIELD (SUE CURRAN)
This was excellent casting – as the note says “there is tenderness in her slight person” and she had both! With an excellent accent – “leesurely” instead of “leisurely”, for example, she had a wonderful ability to communicate effectively with the audience in her direct addresses which are to all intents and purposes “soliloquies”.
She had that clear tone and sharp diction which language like this needs and her range encompassed the energy of her remembrances of times past, the anxiety about her family and their future, with effective notes of personal disappointment, the latter with a drop to lower register. But throughout she had such timing and such skill with the humour that the play had a strong edge of comedy. Her response to the name O’Connor, was quick and sharp,
“That, of course, means fish – tomorrow is Friday”
After a rather sad phone call, she found humour in a quickened response,
“I think she’s hung up”
There were some loose and repeated gestures – the arms outstretched in front, perhaps, but normally the body language reflected and even deepened the emotions expressed. It was well judged, nicely built up and always truthful, despite the nature of the play. Well done, Susan!
TOM WINGFIELD (MATTHEW LAMBERT)
As if being a sort of imaginary young Tennessee Williams, and a son with a key role also in the development of Amanda’s loss were not enough, he also plays the role of the narrator, telling the story as he looks back on it. Matthew is a talented and experienced performer and rose to the task exceedingly well, with great pace and clarity in his narrations which moved the production along with energy. His smooth changes from the present to the past, marked by a consistent change of merchant navy coat and woollen hat, were a great help. From the moment he announced his intentions, with clarity and finality, he set the example himself of what it was about,
“I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion”.
As the rebelling son, he caught a note of anger mixed with humour as he attacked her for “all this discussion” of animals’ secretions etc. The strong bitter tone re-emerged often, in references such as
“You think I’m in love with the Continental Shoemakers”
There was humour,
“I’ll rise but I won’t shine”
delivered with pace and good timing. There was human understanding delivered with a full tone,
“then all at once my sister touches my shoulder…”
Perhaps he flicked the hand as a gesture just too many times and his hair was far too long for the thirties although as narrator and magician it was suitable for that role so it’s a hard call! It did perhaps make it difficult to accept the switch, even as a literary person, back into the thirties. But all these minor points were incidental in the overall success of a very complex and strongly theatrical performance. Well played, Matthew!
LAURA WINGFIELD (NAOMI SAVAGE)
There was a moment or two of doubt – the limp seemed occasionally inconsistent, the appearance and voice robust – but soon dispelled by the sensitivity of the performance, the wholly truthful characterisation and the luminosity and credibility in the eyes. After all, Williams makes it clear he is not looking for the reality of the crippled leg. The inability to move into the real world is because of her exquisite fragility. She caught this so well. There was a smile, almost radiant but shy, and a gentle, young nasal tone,
“Yes but let her tell it”.
The back was straight – she was her Mother’s daughter, but the longing in the memories in the school annual and the wistful focus on the glass animal,
“You see how the light shines through him?”
were brought out clearly by the inner feeling reflected in eyes and body. After shyness almost painful to watch, she was animated by the gentleman caller and his kiss and then the downhill slide was conveyed so well, way beyond the mere words,
“You-wont-call again?”
Such a well created characterisation, expertly played – well done, Naomi!
JIM O’CONNOR (MATTHEW BIRD)
Another Matthew but playing a character as different as could be. He is described as a nice, ordinary young man and he caught that flavour well with his pleasant chatter, manners and attention to Laura. But in other ways he is as wrapped up in himself as the other characters. He ignores her pain as he retreats into his secure world,
“The power of love is really pretty tremendous”.
He had just the voice to do it and together with a distinctive and frequent laugh, he was well dressed with short hair and good youthful movements, a great way with the cigarette and a smooth delivery. He had charm yet suggested in his tone a certain level of emptiness, only seeming more genuine as he built up to the kiss. His kiss was impulsive, his change of manner convincing,
“Stumble-john. I shouldn’t have done that”
He may not appear till the latter part of the play but his impact on them all, as well as the up-beat pace and liveliness he gave to the audience, was effective. Good observation
and good playing by an actor of immense stage presence. Well done, Matthew!
ENDEAVOUR, ORIGINALITY and THEATRICAL ATTAINMENT
I remember with pride my first production and always think it my best, although it was probably full of clumsiness! Lucy had here something she will remember, too, but without the clumsiness.
The play oozes original features – one of which the later production dropped and which Lucy did not use, either – the screen slides. This was wise, I think, although they might provide a sign post for some of the themes. The set with its easy access to the room and from room to room, though in the spirit of the original was differently done and was a good original touch that helped the flow of the production. The inspiration for all this was surely the director for it was obviously well suited to her vision.
There was obvious endeavour in the teamwork of the backstage crew, the set constructors and the rest of the technical departments in creating the ingenious set and its varied levels with success. The challenge to the costume and hairstyle designers and the properties master was well met and they were some of the high attainments of the piece. The production overall was theatrical, moving, ironic, with well delivered humour and most of all, humanity.
The cast all related well to their parts, bringing originality and endeavour to their characters and performances which were of a high level of attainment.. Their comic timing was good and their ability to convey raw or disguised feeling and pain was first class. Lucy’s love of the play showed itself in the clarity and expression in the playing of the text, but also and importantly it showed the strength she possesses to create a team and bring out the most powerful of performances from each individual. A slight tightening up of stray gestures and a little more clarity as to what was real and what was theatrical contrivance - real cigarettes but no real food, for example - might have been a helpful endeavour. But this was something to savour both in the theatre and afterwards – an experience of compassion, impact and disciplined evocative performance.
Well done, Lucy and well done everyone!
Garth Jones
GARTH JONES Adjudicator 2008/200
