Stage on Screen: The Women

Most of the criticism of this production seems to center on the lack of subtlety of the actresses. Were the production a film or television show, I might be inclined to agree, but this was a stage production and meant to be seen by an audience some fifty or more feet away.

I thought the performance good, though its script is dated in its outlook on women and their reliance upon men. The characters are stereotypes and obviously were written to be just that way. The actresses play them with gusto, and the audience's reaction indicates that the performances went over well in that theater - although I agree that Tilly's brassy and nasal portrayal of the 'other woman' left me wondering why any man would be interested in her Crystal for anything more than a quick fling.

The close-up camera work for this video production doesn't do the show justice as the actresses are not playing for a camera, and the video audience therefore sees only the "over-the-top" look of these women projecting for a theater audience.

The premise behind PBS' "Stage on Screen" -- recording a live performance of a Broadway play and broadcasting it for TV viewers at home -- is wonderful. But the source material for this particular episode isn't. The other episode I've seen, "The Man Who Came to Dinner" with Nathan Lane, gave me a great chance to "attend" Broadway and enjoy a quality production. But it had quality not just because the performers, sets, costumes, etc. were good, but because the script had something going for it.

Led to expect the original play of "The Women" to be a profound satire loaded with saucy wit, I found that the smart jokes are actually spread real thin, with lots of dead dialogue. But the melodrama is syrup-thick, to my surprise. The whole thing ends up in a shape resembling a comedy-drama, and an awkward one at that. At one point you'll watch one of the many ashen scenes with Mary Haines suffering the pain of losing her husband to a younger, prettier floozy. Then suddenly Luce throws in a quick low humor routine right at its heels. Fortunately, most of the actresses go into high gear to emphasize the humorous hypocrisy and silliness of their characters. But the script just isn't that funny. Most of the humor consists of familiar, basic gags (e.g. the elderly divorcée hunting for #5) or random bits done by minor players in the many throwaway roles. I can picture the playwright going, "Hmm, what else can I do to punch up this scene and kill twelve more seconds? Oh, why don't I have a Russian seamstress come in and do a silly walk...", after which the seamstress promptly disappears for the rest of the play. Many other minor bits, like Mr. Haines' officious secretary, fall flat.

At any rate, the jokes are outnumbered by the minutes spent on the heavy, "realistic" themes of Mary's heartbreak and divorce. The Mary character is rather a wet blanket, and with most of the attention on Mary and her soap opera plot line, the watching becomes tedious. This is not helped by Cynthia Nixon's portrayal of the character as weepy, oblivious, and ghostly-voiced; it makes her kind of creepy, really. But since the role seems lame from square one, any actress would be hard-pressed to make it interesting. (I haven't seen the 1939 film and don't know how they went about the character and script in that one.)

While all this goes on, you realize that the self-serious play doesn't have anything really notable to say. Perhaps the playwright's career at Vanity Fair and her marriage to the Time-Life mogul helped her get this work off the ground. Hey, if so, it would demonstrate what she presented in her play: women aim to marry rich, powerful men to get the comfort and privileges they want!

One other odd bit of fun. If you watch the PBS presentation, stay for the intermission discussion between program host Jason Alexander and the group of actresses. Things take a bizarre, surreal turn when Alexander, speaking in all seriousness and in confidential tones, gives a lesson on how to deal with marital infidelity, or an "accident" as he calls it. I think it went something like, "If you've had an accident, just forget about it and get over the guilt. But if you're thinking of *having* an accident, then we need to talk."

I thought it would be good to actually see the play from which the 1939 movie was made and it was a good exercise in better understanding adaptations. Other than that it was a big disappointment! I understand the mediums of stage and TV and movies are profoundly different, but, in the end, they all need to entertain us and this version was about as entertaining as watching an embroidered tea towel dry-- you can admire the stitching, but it's still only a tea towel, and a wet one at that.

I found myself longing for the movie version which had better acting and, surprisingly, better lines. The play was overly long and poorly constructed and, with few exceptions, the acting was either one-note-- and a shrill, breathy note at that from our lead, Mary Haines-- or one-gag (Edith might have been tired of being pregnant all the time, but not as tired as we were!) Even the minor characters with one moment to shine were dull and, again, with a few exceptions, forgettable.

The one bright light in this time-waster was seeing how handily Jay Sandrich directed the TV filming of a stage play-- just the right combination of group scenes to closeups. And the stagecraft, too, was topnotch! But neither of these could raise this version beyond "adequate."

This is a wonderful version of this classic, but seldom-staged play. Mary Louise Wilson, Kristen Johnson, Jennifer Coolidge, Lisa Emery, and Mary Bond Davis

are all terrific in their roles. Far better than the1939 George Cukor version with watered down and censored script. Furthermore, unlike the 1939 version, the

costuming, lighting, and stage design are fabulous. The program also offers

interesting insights into the actress' work through the "intermission" interview conducted by Jason Alexander. Here's hoping that "The Women" is released on

DVD just like the 2000 Broadway version of "The Man Who Came to Dinner"

was.

i have read many of the comments here and i should like to add my own.

While i can see where there was room for improvement in some areas, over all this was good entertainment, and i will purchase a copy for later viewing.

all of the ladies play their parts well. the one thing i can say is that they all had a tendency to sing........... their words....... and that is where the improvements can and should be made. yes they are on stage and they had the need to project their voices so that those in the back may be heard. But speaking in clear tones from ones diaphragm does not require loud long.............. drawling singing words........

i do believe they had the right,(type casting), for the parts -the women did fit their roles, however, you could tell that a bit more live on stage experience is needed.

no, not tony award winning- but not a bomb either. good entertainment when all you want is to not think about your cares, and watch and listen in on others...........