Stage on Screen: The Women

This is a wonderful version of this classic, but seldom-staged play. Mary Louise Wilson, Kristen Johnson, Jennifer Coolidge, Lisa Emery, and Mary Bond Davis

are all terrific in their roles. Far better than the1939 George Cukor version with watered down and censored script. Furthermore, unlike the 1939 version, the

costuming, lighting, and stage design are fabulous. The program also offers

interesting insights into the actress' work through the "intermission" interview conducted by Jason Alexander. Here's hoping that "The Women" is released on

DVD just like the 2000 Broadway version of "The Man Who Came to Dinner"

was.

Most of the criticism of this production seems to center on the lack of subtlety of the actresses. Were the production a film or television show, I might be inclined to agree, but this was a stage production and meant to be seen by an audience some fifty or more feet away.

I thought the performance good, though its script is dated in its outlook on women and their reliance upon men. The characters are stereotypes and obviously were written to be just that way. The actresses play them with gusto, and the audience's reaction indicates that the performances went over well in that theater - although I agree that Tilly's brassy and nasal portrayal of the 'other woman' left me wondering why any man would be interested in her Crystal for anything more than a quick fling.

The close-up camera work for this video production doesn't do the show justice as the actresses are not playing for a camera, and the video audience therefore sees only the "over-the-top" look of these women projecting for a theater audience.

This TV filming of the horrible revival of "The Women" is truly painful to watch. Kristen Johnson is caricature; Rosalind Russell she ain't. Jennifer Tilly should not be allowed to speak in public. Cynthia Nixon who is so amazing on "Sex and the City" does not quite hit the mark. Seeing Rue McClanahan in knickers scared me death and reaffirmed my homosexuality. Hallie Kate Eisneberg who was so cute in the Pepsi commercials cannot act.

Having loved the movie so I was so disheartened to see it first on Broadway and then somehow I thought maybe it would be better on TV and it was even worse. The acting was so sub-par the project just should have been shelved.

When the film was made in 1939, the leading ladies of the day populated the cast leaving some big shoes to be filled. These actresses failed.

i have read many of the comments here and i should like to add my own.

While i can see where there was room for improvement in some areas, over all this was good entertainment, and i will purchase a copy for later viewing.

all of the ladies play their parts well. the one thing i can say is that they all had a tendency to sing........... their words....... and that is where the improvements can and should be made. yes they are on stage and they had the need to project their voices so that those in the back may be heard. But speaking in clear tones from ones diaphragm does not require loud long.............. drawling singing words........

i do believe they had the right,(type casting), for the parts -the women did fit their roles, however, you could tell that a bit more live on stage experience is needed.

no, not tony award winning- but not a bomb either. good entertainment when all you want is to not think about your cares, and watch and listen in on others...........

I thought it would be good to actually see the play from which the 1939 movie was made and it was a good exercise in better understanding adaptations. Other than that it was a big disappointment! I understand the mediums of stage and TV and movies are profoundly different, but, in the end, they all need to entertain us and this version was about as entertaining as watching an embroidered tea towel dry-- you can admire the stitching, but it's still only a tea towel, and a wet one at that.

I found myself longing for the movie version which had better acting and, surprisingly, better lines. The play was overly long and poorly constructed and, with few exceptions, the acting was either one-note-- and a shrill, breathy note at that from our lead, Mary Haines-- or one-gag (Edith might have been tired of being pregnant all the time, but not as tired as we were!) Even the minor characters with one moment to shine were dull and, again, with a few exceptions, forgettable.

The one bright light in this time-waster was seeing how handily Jay Sandrich directed the TV filming of a stage play-- just the right combination of group scenes to closeups. And the stagecraft, too, was topnotch! But neither of these could raise this version beyond "adequate."