Sweet Bird of Youth

by Tennessee Williams
Goodman Theater

If we want to talk about something that should have worked, I mean something that looked perfect on paper, but absolutely did not come together - well, here it is - Sweet Bird of Youth at the Goodman Theater.

As far as I'm concerned, Goodman is zero for two with me. The two productions I've seen have lacked heart or finesse or magic or something...

My hunch is that this was a trial for a potential Broadway run. I'd be shocked, jaw-on-the-ground, if that every happened.

On paper, let's just review this one more time - you have Williams PLUS David Cromer PLUS Diane Lane. Where, oh where, did this go wrong? It was almost impossible that a production working with that sort of talent derailed, but it did.

It had something to do with the two leads, because my favorite act was the second act - where they were hardly present at all. Yes, the second act - that short, sweet act was the act that worked. It's the only one where I got lost in the drama of the story and the action of the play.

So, you have this mega-talent movie star who wants to descend into the theater world for a good swim. She wants to do serious drama, but not Streetcar. She has an opportunity to work with a director who has produced a fabled number of hits (and, sorry to say, a couple of critical misses) in the last 10 years. And, the deal is inked. Why not?

Well, this was simply painful. It was drudgery to watch. Melodramatic, it never landed - didn't feel real except in the second act.

The rule that you can't tear something down without an idea of what could have made it better probably applies here.

The first fix would clearly be casting. The leads were incompatible. And, while they are supposed to be incompatible - there is actually something that is supposed to work between them - some sort of connection - much like the Sunset Boulevard connection between its two leads of an aging actress, down-on-life who has found some respite in a younger, gigolo-ish man. The male lead should have been more dependent and more charismatic and slightly less good looking and the female lead should have been more down-and-out, more desperate and underplayed.

The sets were not quite right. The thrust of the play is about running away from something so hard and so fast that you run right back into it, because you finally are out of places to run. It should have felt more furtive. The bed should have been center stage, because that is only one of the few things connecting the two main characters. There should have been an ambitious, grand bathroom visible in the back because this is a main character that would take a lot of time in the bathroom, getting ready. In the third act, I'm really, really uncertain about using the giant turntable. At least it was more appropriate than the bright, almost minimalist, grand hotel room in the first act.

More than anything, I would have worked to recapture the intimacy and tension that runs through Williams' works, which was absolutely lost here. You go to Williams to roll up your sleeves and get a little bit dirty, not to be scrubbed clean. Lower that ceiling, lower the voices and mike them well, relax - move the acting energy to a more interior place and change the pace - not so frantic, not so aggressive. More furtive, more desperate, more hopeful.

It's done and gone, hopefully to never reappear in this form. But, it had to be seen. It's part of the dialogue. The next time this play shows up, this production will have to be dealt with, not because it was good but because sometimes a production aims to be important and you just have to deal with it.