On Golden Pond

Christopher Plummer is always worth watching, so I sat through this whole production Not for the first time, I kept wishing that "On Golden Pond" was less of a glossed over, wishy-washy, happy-ending sort of show. Both the play and the film, and this version, too, gloss over the fact that Norman Thayer is truly a cruel person who was deliberately unkind to his daughter all her life. He seems to have been unkind, sarcastic, and verbally abusive to a great many people. I wouldn't want to be his daughter and I wouldn't want to be his wife. He's embittered and negative, and there seems to be no reason for his embitteredness as his life, as we are shown it, seems to have been a fortunate one. He and his wife appear to have no money troubles, he was successful in his career, his wife sticks by him and loves him -- what the he** is his problem? Every version of On Golden Pond presents Norman as a sort of curmudgeon, an old "poop." But he's not just an old curmudgeon. He's nasty. He hurt Chelsea. There's no reason to believe he won't continue to hurt Chelsea, even after their little confrontation/reconciliation. Consider how he refuses to tell her on the phone that he and Ethel will visit Chelsea and Bill in January? He later says it to the boy. But not to Chelsea. No, he's got to leave her hanging. He can't say they'll come. He can't give her that satisfaction or even allow her to plan. It's creepy.

I've never understood why On Golden Pond is considered a sweet, love story. I just don't get it.

This TV version is okay. Just okay. Plummer and Andrews turn in professional performances. They have chemistry together, that's obvious. Headly, playing the daughter, is less believable and seems nervous even when Norman isn't in the room. Sam Robards as Bill seems twitchy, too. The boy's role is downplayed in this version and he doesn't really get a chance to register. The set is excellent. There's some strikingly bad camera work here and there, more than I think is acceptable, even in a live production.

The best part of the whole production is the promo at the beginning when the camera zooms in on Plummer and Andrews in a private room. They're supposedly rehearsing, but are actually playing Go Fish. It was cute. If you listen, you can hear the difference between Plummer's actual, strong voice in that promo, and his strained, weaker voice as Norman.

I also love the bit when Plummer is on the phone with the boy, and says that Dumas, author of The Three Musketeers, is not pronounced Dumb-A**. Whenever I see Alexandre Dumas' name from now on, I'm going to think of that :-).

There is so much talk about the poor ratings this movies received that its good qualities have been largely ignored. It should be a great pleasure and honor for the public to have Mr. Plummer perform live on TV. He is one of the only great actors left from the generation of theater actors that included Jason Robards and George C Scott. Of course, the public is as always ignorant and most people prefer to watch trashy programs such as the survivor. In this movie, both Plummer and Andrews were superb as was Glenne Headly. In this era of trashy movies and low life so called actors such as Tom Green, David Spade, and Adam Sandler, who all should be working together in a Burger Joint instead of making films, it's refreshing to have such a good play performed live on TV. Plummer is a true treasure in this movie as he was in the last year's film the Insider and in American Tragedy. We hope to see more of him in the future.

It was a risky experiment, but on the basis of last night's live presentation of "On Golden Pond", I'd say it was a major success. Despite a few flaws (no live presentation is completely perfect), this is one of the years' best films:a great film in the so far (with the exception of a few undeniable gems) lousy film year 2001.

It's becoming a trend, I'm afraid, that good, intelligent entertainment is being relegated to television more and more. So far, we've been treated to such excellent films as "Wit" and "61*" (both HBO), "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her" (Showtime) and "The Miracle Maker" (ABC). These are all films that deserved theatrical release. Why not?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that they wouldn't appeal to the mindless teenagers who go to films these days. They are actually about something, which is deadly to those affected by what Roger Ebert calls the "Screen Attention Defecit Disorder". But at least TV is giving these lost films a chance to be seen and heard. For that we should be grateful.

Now, back to the movie. Since it's inevitable that it will be compared with the highly regarded (deservedly so) 1981 film, I might as well start. There is much more comedy in this version than the 1981 version, and I think that's the way it should be. Henry Fonda's more grave and serious portrayal was just right in that version and Christopher Plummer puts his own personal spin on Norman. Of course, Plummer has had more success with comedy than Fonda did, so the change is good, in this case.

Also, there's more time spent on the personal relationship between Norman and his wife Ethel than in the 1981 version, and I think that's also a good change; you don't want to see a retread of the original, you want to see another reading of the same material and this live version takes risks. It's not shy about the material, which is what plagues most TV movies (and theatrical features, for that matter)

But I don't want to give away too much, since a video version is inevitable, I would like to save some of the nice changes for you to discover. Like I stated before, there are a few flaws (some shaky camera work and you can hear the director speaking through the soundman during one of Julie Andrews' big speeches), but what amazes me about this live version is how it constantly surprised and entertained me, especially since I loved the 1981 version.

During the commercial break, it was announced that this was the first in a series of live presentations. That's good news; in an era of trash TV, perhaps an exciting, offbeat format like live TV (these days, at least)will make TV worth watching today.

**** out of 4 stars

This live production of Ernest Thompson's classic "On Golden Pond" was a refreshing experience. Its good to see culture on network television again. That being said,I must say that although billed as a live version of the play,its not quite a correct statement to make. Act II features several changes in the material (I.E. Bill returning with Chelsea to the lake,an absurd altercation between Bill and Charlie).

The changes do not, for the most part, effect the plot all that greatly,however. The only exception(although the actor is talented) is the treatment of Charlie the mail man..he becomes too obsessed and less fun.

As performances go...Plummer leads the pack..he gives a completely sincere performance and stays clear of any hint of Fonda's famous screen portrayal. Andrews is also fine as Ethel,equally acerbic and loving...again,not a hint of Hepburn.

The only supporting actor I though weak was Glenn Headley as daughter Chelsea,she seemed to lack any sense of fire or assertiveness.She should be as the character says 'In Charge in Los Angeles" but feeling like the little fat girl at home...we only glimpse the fat girl..even with Bill.

Over all OGP was a strong production. Hopefully the Networks will show more live on stage productions of classic plays in the future.

On Golden Pond is a timeless classic and the 1981 movie is one of the greatest films ever made. So it was very difficult for this version to come close to the movie. Andrews and Plummer are fantastic together and I can't believe they waited 36 years to do something together again. They are brillant as usual but the rest of the cast is way out of their league and look very unconfortable. This is a good try but it comes nowhere near the emotional resonance of the movie. Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda are unforgetable in these roles and it's hard to picture anyone else comparing to them.