Cat on a Hot Tin Roof cast list
Tennessee Williams' drama, at Spokane Civic Theatre, Feb. 24-March 11
directed by Jessica McLaughlin
Maggie the Cat: Chasity Kohlman
Brick: Damon C. Mentzer
Mae, “Sister Woman”: Caryn Hoaglund
Gooper, “Brother Man”: Paul Huck
Big Mama: Jean Hardie
Dixie: Katie Nave
Buster: Jacob Newell
Trixie: Kelly Kopczynski
Big Daddy: Lauren Bathurst
Rev. Tooker: Gary Pierce
Dr. Baugh: Kim Berg
posted by Bobo the Theater Ho @ 6:49 PM
19 Comments
19 Comments:
So which version are all y'all usin'? Tenn's? Kazan's?
Not sure I understand the question, Bobo. Williams wrote it, Kazan staged it, and it ran for 694 performances. Is there another version?
I'm admittedly fuzzy on the details and have yet to do the re-research - but from having taught it, I seem to remember that Williams wrote it, Kazan had him rewrite it in more upbeat and less explicit (about the homosexuality) fashion (the "Broadway version"). But some theater company (companies?) have since unearthed the original and produced that. And I even think there's some third, conflated text. Sort of like quarto, Folio, conflated King Lear. Again, I'm fuzzy on it, but I'd bet my house that there are at least two texts of Cat.
Sorry, Kazan urged Tenn to rewrite the third act, not the rest of it.
Thanks, Bobo. I didn't know that.
Kazan wanted Williams
to bring Big Daddy back in Act 3; make clear that Brick had undergone a change; and make Maggie more sympathetic.
And the rest of this post is plagiarized, I hope for the general benefit:
The revisions Williams made at Kazan’s request also include Brick’s softening attitude to Maggie. In the original version, Brick’s response to Maggie’s declaration of love is “Wouldn't it be funny if that was true,” an enigmatic remark that is in keeping with his character. But in what became known as the Broadway version, Brick says, “I admire you, Maggie,” which gives the play a more positive resolution, designed to appeal to popular taste. It was this version that was performed when the play opened on Broadway in 1955.
Williams continued to tinker with the last Act for many years. He said at one time that he preferred his original version, although he thought the revised version was better written. In 1975, a third published version of the play appeared, which contained elements from the original as well as the revised version. Williams declared this to be the definitive version. It was staged by the American Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford, Connecticut, in 1974, directed by Michael Kahn [in the production with Keir Dullea (2001: A Space Odyssey) as Brick and Fred Gwynne (The Munsters) as Big Daddy -- sez Bobo].
Critics have sometimes felt that Williams’s first instincts were correct. Alice Griffin, for example, argues that the original third act “is truer to the characters and to the artistic integrity of the play” (Understanding Tennessee Williams, p. 165). The original version was successfully performed in a Broadway revival of 1990, directed by Howard Davies. However, the most recent revival of the play, seen on Broadway during the 2003-04 season, used the 1974-75 version.
A question
Does any body know if the rumors that interplayers has canceled Miss Firecracker Contest and do not plan to have a show in the TBA slot are true?
If anyone would know you would Bobo
I have heard that rumor. Getting on-the-record comments can be tricky.
Ask the right people.
like who?
What is this a gossip column? Inquiring minds want to know? Who cares? I'm sure everyone will know sooner or later. True or false. Is there some prestige in being the first to know? What's this blog for anyway?
When what had been for 23 years (or so) Spokane's premier theater reduces its main-stage season from seven plays to six, then takes Mozart and Salieri off the slate and reduces it to TBA, then generates some faint reasons to believe that Miss Firecracker might not go up -- and when Nike's departure casts doubt on at least one role in Romeo and Juliet (if not the entire production itself) ... that'd leave three unharmed productions out of what used to be seven ... then we're witnessing the regrettable downslide of a theater I've attended and loved (speaking personally) for 14 years and which (more important) has been a mainstay of Spokane's cultural scene ever since 1980.
That's arts news. That's stuff that the local theatrical community should know about. Perhaps wiser voices than mine can pitch in on the question of whether and how and Interplayers can be rescued, whether local theatergoers will actually support the the four-ring circus of ARt-Interplayers-Civic-CenterStage et al. (not implying that anyone's a clown here, folks), and how the professional theaters in town can best coordinate, cooperate, scrounge and do whatever's possible so that people who care about theater have more to choose from than just the road shows, good as they may be.
Inquiring minds ask things like whether Michael Weaver wears boxers or briefs. That kind of thing _is_ stupid. But cutting past the P.R. flack-speak to get at what's really going on in Spokane theater and how we might best improve and maintain it for the maximum benefit of the maximum number of theatergoers here _is_ worthwhile, I think. And the sooner people know about developments, the sooner they can prepare, react, try to achieve change. (Not that we're fighting an insurrection, I know. There's a billion people in China who don't give a damn about this blog - and even that way understates the level of uninterest in it worldwide.)
This blog is sometimes just informational; people complain about it being like a bulletin board. So, some controversy -- no, that's too controversial. So, just report the facts -- no, that's too boring.
Hey, I'm just glad somebody's reading. More later.
Fine and well. But you all are talking and using the word "rumor". You are not stating facts. I haven't heard an announcement from the theater. You are speculating. Don't you think the theater will make the public aware of their situation at a time when the theater believes the timing to be correct? Do you think casting rumors about, that may or may not be true, might just hurt this theater you proclaim to love. Don't you think "responsibility" plays a role. Shouldn't this blog or at least your responses to it, be as responsible as a newspaper? If not, then it's being as responsible as the National Inquirer. You stated yourself, the theater's not "on the record". And given that the rumor may be true, what do you suppose you and or the people on this blog can do about it with "early warning" verses waiting until the people in charge decide it's time for you to know? Generate early bad publicity? Until something concrete can be stated, the word rumor can only bring negativity to the entity involved.
Well, I heard ... (on good authority, though) ... that contracts for actors and directors for the rest of Interplayers' previously announced season have been cancelled, to be replaced by offerings of local talent that can be had for the right price ... well, at least the price that currently matches Interplayers' savings account ... nothing ... in whatever shows or format that local talent can be induced to perform.
Anonymous-by-any-other-name has just come through and proved the point, Bobo!! Would you call that rumor ("good authority, no name" is still just a rumor) good for the theater? This poster's comments appear very negative to me. True or false, the tendency is to put it out in the most negative light possible. Does this type of communication help theater in the community? Do you see this poster coming to the rescue or the demise of the theater? I see just another slam that gives the undercurrent of "Don't go to Interplayers, you're just going to see local theater talent putting on a show. Stay home and watch Spanky And The Gang for you know there can be no real talent in Spokane!" That's providing that "Good Authority Rumor" is true. What if it's not true? This sort of thing just hurts the theater and I'm quite certain there are people who have felt slighted in all four of the theaters in Spokane that love taking any shot possible at the theater. This type of communication doesn't serve anything and if this is what the blog is for, I'm out.
Aninymous 1:39 PM, I think you're the one whose being negative. Local talent has brought more than one of our local theatre organizations national recognition and awards. Local talent, if not the backbone, has played - successfully played, I might add - a heavily supporting role in ARt, Interplayers and CenterStage offerings this season, last season, and, in Interplayers' case, long before. This "rumor" serves to alert local talent (a) that they need to come to Interplayers support NOW if they want this organizartion to survive; (b) they need to support - by buying tickets, volunteering, or otherwise financially assisting - the other theatre orgainizations in town, or they, too, may soon come to Interplayers' fate; and (c) this may be the opportunity to approach Interplayers as a possible forum for their long-held dreams, pet projects or other creative offerings to become a reality during the upcoming months while Interplayers Board regroups for next season.
Nice recovery. But this piece of your previous post:
"...to be replaced by offerings of local talent that can be had for the right price ... well, at least the price that currently matches Interplayers' savings account ... nothing ... in whatever shows or format that local talent can be induced to perform." is hardly positive.
It implies: Local talent works for nothing! Interplayers bank account is zero! Do whatever format or play you are induced to do, for we don't care to control our quality!"
The benefit of the doubt: You chose to be terse and subsequently could not expand your real intention.
However, you also felt this "in the know" need to spout information to a community in place of the theater's officials who may have and no doubt probably do have a much more positive communication about their future.
Rumors are simply harmful. Do you really think that the Board is going to go out and say: Hey local talent, be alert, come here and put on a play. Come one, come all. Maybe... they have a plan. Perhaps that plan is carefully thought out and perhaps they are not as needy as your post implies.
Be positive and wait and see. Let the people in charge attempt to put their best foot forward. Hope for the best, most positive, outcome possible. If indeed that is your intention. Spreading rumors, (on good sources or not), isn't helping.
I've created a Jan. 26 entry (above) for continuing this discussion, which, let's face it, has nothing to do with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.
What's wrong with giving the other theatres in town the heads up that some previously committed and very talented people might be available?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home