Who's Afraid of Kathleen Turner?
I went to see Kathleen Turner and Bill Irwin in the stage version of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf last night at the Golden Gate Theatre.
I was both pleased and disappointed. To start, David Furr was exceptionally good as the young and studly, Nick. He even made his attraction to Ms. Turner's Martha as believable as it could be. And, Kathleen Early was fairly good as his waifish wife, Honey. One must, of course, overlook a great bit of her annoying characterization, as that is how Albee wrote the character. Thank goodness she has the fewest number of lines, by far. But, those were pretty much the highlights of this performance.
Unfortunately, I felt that Kathleen Turner was merely passable as the bold and brash Martha. Perhaps if Ms. Turner had just an ounce of feminine attractiveness left to her, she might have been a little more believable in the role. She stomped around the stage with more masculinity and spasticity than most of the men that I know, which put her right at the lesbionic level. (Her wardrobe did not help matters here.) At points, I thought they surely must have reinforced the stage lest she certainly would have fallen through. Luckily, seducing Nick is only part of the role of Martha (the other half being the pants-wearer in her family). So, there were also points in the play in which I felt she was fairly believable.
And, that brings us to Bill Irwin as George. I truly do not understand how this man won the Tony award for this performance. To me, his performance was completely unbelievable. Sure, George is supposed to be a beaten-down, whipped man. But, only to a point. George must have a "quiet intensity" to be believable... as if he has acquiesced rather than been forced into submission, thus maintaining the capability of a future uprising. There was none of this to Irwin's performance. Neither was there any flow to Irwin's characterization. Finally, he mumbled and was awkward in his stage movements, to the point of distraction.
Fortunately, I love the piece of American literature so much that it is difficult for me not to enjoy any chance I get to see it performed. It also didn't hurt that this was my first time seeing it professionally performed. (I've seen it performed by amateur and student theater groups three or four times before.) But, loving the piece as I do, I did not appreciate the liberties they took with the script. I'm usually not that much of a purist; however, in this case, although they may have been seemingly subtle changes, they were very distracting to me.
Overall, it was a good night and I'm glad that I went. I can just think of about 100 other actors that I think would have done a much better job in the two leads.
I was both pleased and disappointed. To start, David Furr was exceptionally good as the young and studly, Nick. He even made his attraction to Ms. Turner's Martha as believable as it could be. And, Kathleen Early was fairly good as his waifish wife, Honey. One must, of course, overlook a great bit of her annoying characterization, as that is how Albee wrote the character. Thank goodness she has the fewest number of lines, by far. But, those were pretty much the highlights of this performance.
Unfortunately, I felt that Kathleen Turner was merely passable as the bold and brash Martha. Perhaps if Ms. Turner had just an ounce of feminine attractiveness left to her, she might have been a little more believable in the role. She stomped around the stage with more masculinity and spasticity than most of the men that I know, which put her right at the lesbionic level. (Her wardrobe did not help matters here.) At points, I thought they surely must have reinforced the stage lest she certainly would have fallen through. Luckily, seducing Nick is only part of the role of Martha (the other half being the pants-wearer in her family). So, there were also points in the play in which I felt she was fairly believable.
And, that brings us to Bill Irwin as George. I truly do not understand how this man won the Tony award for this performance. To me, his performance was completely unbelievable. Sure, George is supposed to be a beaten-down, whipped man. But, only to a point. George must have a "quiet intensity" to be believable... as if he has acquiesced rather than been forced into submission, thus maintaining the capability of a future uprising. There was none of this to Irwin's performance. Neither was there any flow to Irwin's characterization. Finally, he mumbled and was awkward in his stage movements, to the point of distraction.
Fortunately, I love the piece of American literature so much that it is difficult for me not to enjoy any chance I get to see it performed. It also didn't hurt that this was my first time seeing it professionally performed. (I've seen it performed by amateur and student theater groups three or four times before.) But, loving the piece as I do, I did not appreciate the liberties they took with the script. I'm usually not that much of a purist; however, in this case, although they may have been seemingly subtle changes, they were very distracting to me.
Overall, it was a good night and I'm glad that I went. I can just think of about 100 other actors that I think would have done a much better job in the two leads.