The Man Who Came to Dinner

'The Man Who Came To Dinner' revival was just absolutely amazing! The cast shined. Mr.Sheridan Whiteside was played by the one and only Nathan Lane, who made the play pleasurable the whole time. Jean Smart was, in my opinion, one of the funniest on stage. In a specific scene, when she finds out her cables have been wrongfully sent, she has the crowds (and folks at home) up in roars. This wonderful cast also includes Lewis Stadlen, Harriet Harris, Byron Jennings, Terry Beaver, and many more. If you are ever faced with the chance to see this play, don't pass on it! It Is A True Masterpiece!!

I enjoyed the taped stage play setting and all of the characters were immediately familiar to me, having just viewed the 1942 version. I rarely miss anything that Nathan Lane does and thought him perfect casting as Sheridan Whiteside.

However...it all seemed a bit forced to me. Lane's delivery was good and his mugging very funny, but he was working all the time. It just didn't seem to come naturally. The "Banjo" character was just an impersonation of Durante and an average one at that. As with the '42 film, I feel this character was superfluous.

The overall impression for me was one of a very good amateur company doing their very best to put on a show. I never forgot it was a play, whereas in the '42 version, I got more involved in the story.

As for the inter-act comments from the host and hostess, I skipped those immediately (so grateful for DVD technology!). The newsreel footage and swing music were delightful between the acts, though.

As someone who goes out of his way to see performances of "The Man Who Came to Dinner"--one of the greatest comic concoctions of the 20th century--I thought this was the best media presentation of the play to date, much better than the 1940 film version. My only quibble concerns the decision to pattern Lewis Stadlen's Banjo after Jimmy Durante's version in the film, rather than Harpo Marx (upon whom the character was originally modelled), but that's a matter of personal taste. (And to be fair, Stadlen does just fine, perhaps even out-Duranting Durante.) Conversely, I can't imagine anyone better in the title role than Nathan Lane, and he lives up to my hopes splendidly. (I hope PBS broadcasts him in "The Producers" one of these days!)

PBS is to be commended for its "Stage on Screen" series premiere with this live broadcast from the newly restored 42nd Street theater district in New York City. While Nathan Lane has less of the imperious acidic bite that Monty Woolley brought to the 1942 film, Lane and the play still have punch and sparkle.

Of necessity, the live stage performance lacks the brisk pace of the movie simply because of the stops for scene changes or intermissions between acts. In addition, the classic film was pared down for length. In this broadcast, the interruptions were at least filled with chatty information about the play, the people represented in the play, and the resurrection of 42nd Street.

Despite or because of its dated allusions and overt references, the play is a delightful slice of real life in America just prior to World War II. The work stands up well and is likely to be a classic of 20th Century American theater.

I gave this DVD version of the play a 10 simply for the scene stealing performance by Byron Jennings. He is truly amazing as Beverley Carlton. This is not to be missed by anyone who appreciates uncommonly gifted acting.

Nathan Lane as Sheridan Whiteside is the perfect foil for him. His line about the Lindbergh baby is hilarious, and Byron Jennings' reaction is well in tune with Nathan Lane's humor. It's rare to watch actors who are so much in sync with each other. Too often a film or play will feature great talent playing opposite mediocre talent. Speaking of which, the actress who plays Sheridan Whiteside's secretary is not of their caliber and detracts from their performance.

The play's greatest weakness is that Mr. Jennings appears in just one scene.

Still, it's amazing enough to be worth the cost of purchase.

It's so unfortunate that American film and theater productions place greater value on perfectly photogenic looks, rather than exceptional talent. If only film and theater goers were able to recognize and value substance and depth of character, they would be able to look beyond the shallowness and one dimensional "acting" that is foisted on us.