On a Clear Day... Revival Questions (Still SO Confused)

[Kelly2]

Hi guys. After a recent conversation about this show, I was left more confused than I was before and having seen the first preview, I fear my impression of this show is a bit more muddled than most. If anyone who saw it in later previews or after opening or who has a bit more insight could answer a few questions for me, that would be amazing.

1) When Dr. Bruckner is interacting with Melinda, did it ever become clear in later shows what exactly was going on? What I mean is, was he interacting with Davey "channeling" Melinda, was it supernatural and he was interacting with Melinda herself, or a hallucination of some kind? It was pretty ambiguous and confusing to me so I definitely was curious.

2) I read online that the scene that was an ice skating scene at the top of the second act became a beach scene with some major dialogue changes. Can anyone comment on the content of the "Melinda" scenes in later previews? It seems costumes, wigs, and other details about her were very different as the show evolved.

In general, if anyone could explain what the show looked like after opening night and how different it was from the version I saw, that would be super awesome and would make my day a little bit, since I think it was one of those shows that left me with more questions than answers.

EDIT: A specific moment that confused me was the end when Melinda gets on the plane. What is the meaning behind her telling Mark he "knows why he can't get on the plane"? I've come up with a few different ways to interpret it, probably all wrong.

[ClumsyDude15]

I apologize if my details are a little iffy, because it's been awhile since I've seen the show, but I'm giving this a go.

When Dr. Bruckner is interacting with Melinda, there was only one moment where it was Davey channeling her directly - ie: Jessie speaking and David mouthing along to her words, I believe this was the first time she appears. As the first act continued, Davey would be passed out on the couch or not on stage during the interactions between them. At the end of the first act, there's a sort of cool dance where Bruckner is dancing with the two, but when he leans in to kiss Melinda, Melinda moves out of the way and as the curtain goes down, he's about to kiss Davey.

Her costumes, from what I recall, weren't anything too special - her simple waitress outfit in the first scene giving way to a lot more performance based dresses as she became further along as a performer.

As far as the scene with Bruckner at the end, I always took it as Melinda telling Bruckner that he knows he can't join her, because he knows deep down what is about to happen to her and how her life is over, and now he needs to be there for Davey.

I hope that help, because I saw final preview, and that's what I remember.

[GavestonPS]

I didn't see the revival, but in the original, I understood the doctor's direct interaction Melinda to be a theatrical presentation of Daisy's sessions. It sounds like the rewrite intended to do the same.

[Kelly2]

Thanks ClumsyDude, I really appreciate the details. I guess what I mean is, since Davey is passed out for the bulk of their interactions, are we supposed to interpret it as that Mark is actually interacting with Melinda and to ignore the logical disconnect and assume it's supernatural on some level?

Since it does turn out that Melinda is a real person and Davey's knowledge of her was real, as evidenced by the scene where he interviews her former collaborator Wesley and Mark knows things Wesley states were never public knowledge, how exactly are we supposed to interpret Mark's relationship with Melinda?

The kiss moment just made me even more confused because then I started thinking she wasn't ever actually physically present, but there are other details that contradict that interpretation.

I've been assuming it was like you and GavestonPS said, that his interactions were with Davey and they were just presented in a theatrical way through Melinda, but given the revival's assertion that Melinda was in fact a real person and that through their sessions, Mark actually learned details about her life that could not have been obtained through other sources, it makes everything a bit more cloudy. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Melinda is in fact Davey's past-life self that he is calling forward in their sessions?

EDIT: Also, what scene does Mark have with Melinda after Ev'ry Night at Seven in the final version of the show? I know that's one of the major scenes that was changed but I never saw the second one.

[Playbilly]

I don't think it was intended to be clear. Bruckner couldn't distinguish Davey from Melinda from a fantasy of his wife, so we were supposed to be a little confused as well. At least that's how I interpreted it (and maybe why I liked the "revisal" while others didn't). When the curtain comes down on the kiss, Bruckner is still kissing Melinda, but we see the "reality" of him kissing Davey.

[Kelly2]

See this is hard for me being a logical person who likes answers! Ha. I mean, if that's the intent then that's cool, I was just wondering if they'd made it any clearer what we're supposed to think about all of it over the course of previews.

[henrikegerman]

Gaveston, that was my take on it. The revival asked the audience to accept that Mark was capable of knowing and falling in love with Melinda through his relationship with Davey. Similar to his being able to know and fall in love with Melinda through his relationship with Daisy. The gender transformation was intended to enhance the consciousness-expanding theme. Although it was a very worthwhile idea, the show did not work in spite of some very good moments (amid many inept ones). That was my view at any rate. Most people just hated it.

[GavestonPS]

The original had problems with its book as well, but I never gave a moment's thought to the reality of Bruckner/Melinda. Melinda is a prior incarnation of Daisy, and is accessed through hypnosis just as Bridey Murphey was in real life (if you believe that sort of thing).

To me, it's no different from the ghosts in FOLLIES or the old self and young self of "Someone in a Tree". They are real, yes, at least in their own eras, but what we are seeing is a theatrical representation of their reality.

It was probably clearer in the original CLEAR DAY because Barbara Harris played both Daisy and Melinda, something "Davey" couldn't do.

Kelly2, google "Bridey Murphy". She is the real past-life regression case that inspired the show. She was very famous in the 50s and 60s and though Lerner didn't "officially" adapt her story, everyone knew where he got the basic idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridey_Murphy

[Kelly2]

Thank youuuuu henrike and Gaveston, I feel a lot more "clear" on what was going on now. I guess I'm just a bit neurotic and an analyzer by nature so I think I may have been over thinking the show.

I guess my main confusion was whether or not we were supposed to accept Melinda as Davey's past-self without reservations about the logic of that, which seems to be the case. Once you accept that, the ambiguity of the rest of the show is a lot more tolerable.

A flawed show, but I agree the premise was worth exploration and I would've liked to see it after another month or so of serious edits and focusing in on the best parts of the production.

[GavestonPS]

I see no reason why you shouldn't ask whatever you like, Kelly. Curiosity isn't a neurosis.

I'm sorry I didn't think of Bridey Murphy in the first place, because she really was the inspiration. "Past-life regression" was really popular in the 60s and 70s and every housewife in American was convinced she had been Cleopatra in a previous life. (Not to pick on the women; men had their own favorites.)

It was the beginning of what we now call New Age Religion.

[EricMontreal22]

But how could she they think that, when everyone knows Shirley MacLaine was Cleopatra in a past life. Or was she just one of her slave girls... I can't remember. :P

[Kelly2]

Thanks Gaveston, reading back I just think I have a bit of a tendency to over think everything, and this show definitely provided a lot of material to be curious about. I've done some reading (and plan on doing a bit more) on Bridey Murphy and while I understand the context of the show much better, my personal feelings on the idea of past-life regression are even more muddled than before!

[Caring Soul]

Hopefully, this folly has been given a proper burial and will never haunt a theater again.

[GavestonPS]

But how could she they think that, when everyone knows Shirley MacLaine was Cleopatra in a past life. Or was she just one of her slave girls... I can't remember. :P

If MacLaine claimed to be Cleopatra, I missed it. But she does claim to remember past lives.

Writer Taylor Caldwell (DEAR AND GLORIOUS PHYSICIAN, et al.) thought she had been George Eliot, which caused all of us who had read both to laugh out loud. Later and again under hypnosis, Caldwell decided she had been a servant in Eliot's house. That seemed much more plausible.

Personally, I don't automatically scoff at the possibility of recalling past-lives, but the more famous the past incarnation, the less likely I find the claim.