First, I would agree with Michael that disaster seems too strong a word, although my memory is that during early previews, posts here suggested that it was in very serious trouble. By the time it opened, it was more of a disappointment than a disaster. Some questioned whether the play was really all that good, while some thought the production was insufficient.
It seems to me that the play is so delicate that it's especially hard to realize effectively in performance. I recently read Stella Adler on the play, from the collection of her lectures on American playwrights. I was surprised by what she wrote. Her point of view on the play was almost totally in opposition to the general impression I have the play and its characters. I'm inclined to trust Adler, who knew the play much better than I do. Not to mention that she also knew Odets well, and that she was a pretty brilliant lady. I attended one of her lecture series (the one on Chekhov, Ibsen and Strindberg), and to say that her insights on those writers and on acting generally were brilliant would be an understatement.
Presuming that Adler's point of view on the play, which is very pro-Georgie, expresses what Odets intended, the play seems to me almost undramatic. In addition, we have to take so much about the characters on faith, which must make the decision-making process especially difficult for the actors and the director (and for the audience).
So the play seems to demand a perfect production or it risks falling very flat and seeming undramatic, which is a bit ironic given that it's all about theatre and the stresses of putting on a show.
The production was probably not helped by the casting of Morgan Freeman, who had been away from the stage for a very long time and seemed rusty. It's easy to understand why Nichols cast him, but it was a gamble that probably did not pay off.
|