Private Parts
by maxmosher

“There are no second acts in American lives,” F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said, although recent years have provided a number of exceptions. Figures as varied as Al Gore (former V.P. and failed presidential candidate, now international environmentalist icon), Steve Jobs (Apple founder, then Apple exile, then Apple savior) and Rosie O’Donnell (interrupting her sporadic career as a bubbly daytime TV host with bouts of angry activism) all demonstrate why the obsessives who update Wikipedia biographies get so little sleep.
And while an actor would love to get a regular part on a beloved, long-running TV series, it is a mixed blessing: with fame and financial security comes the straightjacket of being trapped in a specific character in the public’s mind. While Kramer, Niles and Phoebe may now exist only in reruns, they cast long shadows on the careers of Michael Richards, David Hyde Peirce and Lisa Kudrow.
It’s probably why Sarah Jessica Parker, who had an interesting if not A-list movie career as a young character actress prior to ‘Sex and the City’, has had a difficult time since taking off her Carrie Bradshaw shoes. In her latest film ‘I Don’t Know How She Does It’ she played a financial advisor who was also a mother, two positions very difficult to imagine Sarah Jessica/Carrie filling.
But, as the giant ‘Sex and the City’ nerd that I am, I only want the best for those ladies. So when I first spotted the fabulously art deco posters for a revival of Noël Coward’s ‘Private Lives’ starring Kim Cattrall (alongside ‘Due South’s Paul Gross), I felt it my duty to attend.

I should admit, though, that, unlike a lot of gay boys out there, Cattrall’s Samantha was never my favourite. I related to Carrie’s romantic yearning and idealism about how life should be (as well as her occasional incoherent incompetence) and cheered on Cynthia Nixon’s Miranda as she provided the show’s feminist voice and demonstrated that beneath toughness can be insecurity. But the cartooniness of Samantha (her porno situations, her over-acted orgasms, the garishly bright colours of her outfits) seemed to personify the worst things people thought about the show.
But my Mother (yes, my Mom and I stay up late watching old ‘Sex and the City’ episodes together), noted an occasional softness in Cattrall’s performance. As the oldest character she suggested a wisdom and far-sightedness the other ladies’ in-the-moment reactions lacked.
When I bought tickets to ‘Private Lives’ for the two of us online, my Mom made me paranoid that Cattrall might sit out some performances. While I understand that every actor needs an understudy and that ‘the show must go on’, as the date of the performance drew nearer, I feared that little piece of paper stuck in the program which would inform us that “Sitting in for Ms. Cattrall…”
There’s the paradox of it: while I support Kim Cattrall moving on with her career and playing different parts, I, like many people at the theatre, bought tickets because I was familiar with her from TV. She could win the Nobel Peace Prize and in the first paragraph of the news story would be the sentence, “best known for her role as Samantha Jones on ‘Sex and the City’…”
The rain was pouring down as people crowded under the illuminated marquee of the Royal Alexander theatre. As we stood in the lobby, Mom in a scarf and me in a bow tie (my nod to the fashions of the 1930’s), we flipped though our programs.
“Oh no,” Mom said, discovering a little slip of white paper.
“At this performance,” it read, “due to the indisposition of Paul Gross the role of Elyot will be performed by Gareth Clarke.”
I audibly sighed. “Thank goodness it was just him,” I said.
“I’m disappointed,” my Mom said. “I wanted to see Paul Gross.”
The play itself is a painfully witty and sophisticated concoction, at once as classic and of its time as a 1930’s martini glass. It begins on a luxurious hotel terrace in Deauville, France. Two couples are celebrating their honeymoons next door to each other. The audience learns that the wife of one pair, Amanda (Cattrall), and the husband of the other, Elyot (not Paul Gross), were not only both married before, but married to each other. When they discover one another what follows is one of the funniest exchanges of awkwardness and mounting anger ever put on the stage, and it reminds one how much sitcoms owe to their drawing room comedy forebears.
Most of the past revivals of ‘Private Lives’ have stuck to the dry, deadpan delivery of Gertrude Lawrence and Noël Coward in the original production. (Norma Shearer and Robert Montgomery even based their performances for the 1931 film version on a recording of that show.)

Cattrall delivers her lines both broader and more realistically, speeding up when she’s upset and occasionally dropping into a demonic shriek when muttering something nasty. Her voice, which sometimes sounded stagey on ‘Sex and the City’, fits nicely with a British accent. (Cattrall was born in England, but grew up in British Columbia.)
It must be noted that Cattrall, who’s playing a part she’s twenty years older than, looks beautiful and incredibly youthful on stage. Although she spends much of the play in dressing gowns, when she steps out in a bias-cut gold evening column, you could almost hear the audience gasp.
And since we’ve admitted and accepted that Kim Cattrall will never fully escape Samantha Jones, what is it like to hear Coward’s sophisticated lines (“Extraordinary how potent cheap music is”) coming from the mouth which once declared, “My boyfriend has the funkiest-tasting spunk”?

With Cattrall in the role, we can better see Elyot and Amanda for their modern hedonism, contrasting with the boring traditionalism of their new spouses. Elyot has a speech defending treating life “flippantly”, which could almost be a founding manifesto of Camp, and Amanda keeps up with her desires to be “wild”. Dare I even suggest that there are some proto-Samantha lines, such as when Elyot claims it’s natural for women to have less affairs and Amanda shoots back, “It’s useful for men for women to have less affairs!”
As they took their bows, Cattrall grabbed Clarke’s hand and allowed the cast and audience to give him a special round of applause, to which he humbly nodded. As a survivor of stage and screen, she knows that, as difficult as it is to be in the shadow of a TV character, for an understudy to emerge from the shadow of the absent star is even harder.

Although I won’t be able to see this play, either in Toronto or on Broadway, due to family obligations, I am making it a point to read as many ‘real person’ reviews of “Private Lives” as possible. I can count the episodes of SatC on the fingers of one hand and still have several free but I have been a Paul Gross fan for many years and, having seen him in Hamlet on the Stratford stage, would have enjoyed seeing him put on the plummy British accent that I’ve heard in the several clips from the play that Mirvish Productions has released.
And, after that long introduction … I’ll get to my point which deals with Kim Cattrall. I’ve seen a number of interviews that she has given recently (mostly for glimpses of PG, I confess) and learned many details of her life and career that have inspired me to acquire some of her more recent movies (My Boy Jack, The Tiger’s Tail, The Ghost Writer and Meet Monica Velour) and give the ‘actress’ that I have learned can be found behind the tv persona the chance to show her real acting chops.
To me, Kim will always be the greed-eyed hottie in “Big Trouble in Little China!” I never bothered watching “Sex and the City” because I thought the show was stupid and made women look needy, desperate and, from what I heard about the show, totally and completely clueless about life, love and sex.
I find it amusing how we can so easily confuse the actor/actress with the character they portray; I suppose that if we think they’re one and the same, wow, they must be really good at what they do, like how I “hated” Denzel Washington in his role in “Training Days.”
It sounds a bit like a case of the chicken and the egg. Which one came first in our estimation … the role or the actor. If we like the actor, do we have to like every role they play. And if we like the role, do we have to like the actor assuming they’re the same?
Isn’t it insulting to the actor to assume that the role = the actor? Then, no acting is required, is it? They’re just playing themselves, whether the character is attractive or repulsive. There are movies that I don’t like to watch because the characters portrayed are so repulsive and the plot isn’t of interest to me. However, I don’t mind watching the actor in another role in the future.
Although, I heard one actor comment that they always played their evil characters/villains as thinking of themselves as being in the right or good people in some fashion. As an actor you don’t want to play your character as someone who thinks of himself as a villain.
… ok, this whole discussion is just going to weird places now.
What did you think of the play?
So jealous that you got to see this. Seeing more theatre has always been a New Year’s Resolution that never pans out, although I had my fill, watching more plays last year than I have my whole life.
Also, I saw Paul Gross in person. I was awkward.