Books

Writing non-fiction’s a bitch – a truth not universally acknowledged.

Theatre

Comment

Don't know where you were sitting, but there were lots of laughs.

Cat on a Tin Roof

by Dimitri Nasrallah


TENNESSEE WILLIAMS won a Pulitzer Prize for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof which premiered in 1955. Three years later, the film version starring Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor became one of the top-ten grossing films of the year. The play hasn’t stopped drawing crowds since.  A complex set piece about mendacity, Williams used numerous parallel plots to weave a web of acrimony around the Pollitt family.  In the right hands, it packs a wallop.  In the wrong hands, as is the case with Greg Kramer’s production at the Segal Centre, the play can turn into a bit of a mess.

The play portrays a generational conflict against the decline of the Old South.  Tennessee Williams was a professed admirer of Anton Chekhov, and so Cat on a Hot Tin Roof unfolds like an Southern variation on The Cherry Orchard, with Big Daddy and his plantation standing in for the Ranevskaya family and their cherry trees.  Both plays are deliberate examinations of the decline of the aristocratic families in the face of a changing society.

Big Daddy, the archetypal self-made man of the Old South has pulled himself out of the boxcars of his childhood and into the riches of cotton farming. He’s dying of cancer – a modern way to go if there ever was one. Roiling underneath this genteel simplicity of his Tennessee plantation, the next generation of Pollitts is jostling for position.  The pressure’s on Brick, the favoured son, to step up and show he’s worthy of inheritance.  In the wings, eldest son Gooper and his wife Mae are popping out babies and legal arguments to solidify their grasp on the family line.

Questions of family only distract a forlorn Brick from his true conflict, the grand secret of his homosexuality, which he tries to drink numb.  Of course, it doesn’t help that his wife Maggie’s eyes are firmly glued to her father-in-law’s estate.  Beyond the alcoholism, Brick and Maggie don’t get along.  He thinks she pushed his best friend (or gay lover) Skipper to suicide some years back.  She thinks he won’t sleep with her to withhold the child they need to solidify their claim on the inheritance.  Maggie needs to resolve her husband’s homosexuality, save her marriage, conceive a child, and fend off her in-laws all before Big Daddy dies.  Suffice it to say she’s under a lot of pressure.   “What is the victory of a cat on a hot tin roof?” Brick asks his wife Maggie early on.  “Just stayin’ on it, I guess,” she replies, “As long as she can.”

That’s a whole lot of conflict for a play to resolve.  And so the success of any production comes from a director prioritizing the interweaving plot lines so that the audience – not to mention the actors – clearly understands how everything lines up.  It’s a juggling act.  Unfortunately, despite an impressively decadent set by John C. Dinning and extravagant costuming by James Lavoie, this is where Greg Kramer’s production begins to unravel.

The central problem is the portrayal of Brick’s homosexuality.  Kramer minimizes then flatly eliminates this integral ingredient of the plot in order to shift the emphasis off Brick and toward his wife Maggie, the play’s supposed cat.  By ruling out a gay Brick, all we’re left with is a drunken ex-football player who won’t sleep with his wife. Skipper is Brick’s invisible foil, the source of his alcoholism, his angst and, ultimately, his sympathy.  Without the backdrop of a gay love affair, there’s only a diminished secret left for Brick to deny, which effectively robs his character of purpose and tragedy.  It doesn’t help matters that Todd Sandomirsky, who plays Brick, is already aimless, a weak actor who offers a void of personality in the place of existential absence.

Around this limited and decidedly un-gay Brick, Maggie and Big Daddy are forced to overcompensate.  Severn Thompson (Maggie) is a fiery and seductive actress, but without a husband pining for another man, the audience really has no reason to sympathize with her marriage or financial ambitions.  On the other hand, Barry Flatman’s Big Daddy brims with so much unbridled anger that he begins to make you wonder if sticking around for his money if even worth it. Sharon Bakker’s Big Mama is left tiptoeing around the edges of his torrential abuse.  Paula Jean Hixson (Mae) and Bill Croft (Gooper) offer understated and cautious performances on a stage spilling over with outsized personalities. In the end, a play that is otherwise built on Williams’ trademark subtlety and symbolic gesture is blunted by unbalanced character portrayals.

The beauty of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof comes from the sly and underhanded interaction that everyone engages in while fighting off the inevitable decline of an era.  On their large plantation, the Pollitts, like Chekhov’s Ranevskayas, block out a world where the Mason-Dixon line is fading away and the cotton-picking trade is slowly being dragged down with the slavery it lived on. They can’t afford to think too far ahead because the future, weighs on them, doesn’t really include them. Too bad, then, that Kramer’s vision of the Pollitts doesn’t afford this lot many chances to effectively interweave their personal predicaments.

Share

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Kate Orland Bere 09.11.2008 at 9:38 pm

So much in theatre–and great fiction–depends on balance and weight attributed to character, and the manner in which characters do balance or cancel one another out–build one upon the other, influence one another–whether as in theatre in the flesh, in the writing of the play itself, and in the response of each audience member, or as in fiction, again in the very act of writing, and in each reader’s mind as they interpret what they read. The book is there to re-read and re-interpret. The play as a text is there to re-read and re-interpret but as a performance it is mutable, and fleeting, each time it is interpreted by a director and a cast of actors, with each performance. Risk-taking plays a unique role, I think, in the possibility for successful theatre (as in fiction), and yet when that risk is magnified by the numbers of actors, theatre becomes a tricky deuce to deal with.

Well done review, M. Nasrallah; I like.

Reply

2 thomas flynn 10.11.2008 at 3:35 pm

thank you for your insightful and honest review. After reading other reviews, and seeing such phrases as “strong cast”, “sterling production”. “honest and relatable performance” (whatever that means) I was wondering what is the state of theatre criticism in Montreal. If these reviews are a case of “faint praise” it is refreshing to know there is one ctitic who is not afraid to “call a spade a spade”

Reply

3 Carol Katz 12.11.2008 at 8:13 pm

I don’t agree with Mr. Nasralla’s review. I was spellbound for the complete 2 hours and 45 minutes. I thought that the actors were well-cast and believable in their roles. What we saw was a dysfunctional family trying to come to terms with what is truth and how to approach an impending death. This is a universal topic that families are trying to grapple with today. The actors are professionals who have had major roles in well-known theatres thrughout North America.

The impressive sets and the blues music were a welcome addition to atmosphere of the 50′s and to the somber mood of this family. The story line was easy to follow, the diction was clear and the actor’s voices projected well. The Segal Theatre was filled with high school students the day I saw this play. They were all silent and absorbed in the production. At the end, the theatre resounded with loud applause and a standing ovation. Unfortunately, some reviewers don’t pay attention to the audience’s reactions.

Reply

4 Edna Welthorpe 17.11.2008 at 4:38 pm

I am so glad I read this review instead of wasting my money going to see such a piece of garbage! Besides, when I called the theatre, I was told that it was sold out with folks being turned away at the door, even when they were on a waiting list – imagine! I could have wasted my time as well. Who wants to see stuff that everyone else wants to see? Not me! And to top it all off, to not have a gay Brick?! I mean, I know Tennessee Williams said quite a few times that Brick was most definitely not gay nor never meant to be, but we all know how much of an contradictory alcoholic Mr Williams was and I mean like it’s so obvious Brick has to be gay. And black.

Reply

5 Ira Sokolova 26.11.2008 at 3:44 pm

Hi Edna,

Yours “Who wants to see stuff that everyone else want to see? Not me!” made me write you and introduce myself and my theatre company to you. Well, I’m a founder and producer of GLEAMS THEATRE and we’ve just came out of a shockingly provocative production of Eugene Ionesco’s The Bald Soprano, Montreal premiere of this play in English. This was something that’d have probably enjoyed and it wasn’t sold out. Unfortunately all critics and journalists were overwhelmed by at least 4 other openings last week so no one responded to our media call or …

Gleams upcoming production is a double bill combining two plays by Woody Allen and David Mamet. It will take place from April 30, 2008 to May 19, 2009 at Mainline Theatre.

If you’d like to join Gleams Theatre
Audience List you can send me your e-mail address or call me at 514.934.0535

Best Regards,

Ira Sokolova

Reply

6 Ira Sokolova 27.11.2008 at 2:09 pm

Hi again,

I just like to write you my other and actually valid e-mail address: irasokolov@sympatico.ca
Thanks.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: