546 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Apr 16, 2024 7:27:27 GMT
I was one of the people on my feet last night at curtain, I thought this was pretty electrifying and Rosie Sheehy was nothing short of incredible.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrnutz on Apr 16, 2024 8:04:32 GMT
I struggled with this on Saturday night - enjoyed the early scenes and the end but the extended period of total darkness in the middle had me drifting off. Quite warm in there too which didn't help!
It ran a full two hours as well.
3/5
|
|
1,473 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 16, 2024 8:18:05 GMT
For drama to hold your attention, it has to have interesting characters -- and here they are deliberately two-dimensional stereotypes --, a gripping story, or a spectacle for the eyes. Having only a message is not enough, especially when that message is rammed home without nuance or subtlety. [ I can easily imagine a great drama inspired by Ruth Snyder's life. It would be exactly like "Double Indemnity," in which a woman insures her husband, then murders him together with her lover to collect the loot, which is what Ruth Snyder did. Billy Wilder made a smashing job of that story, which is almost as good as "Sunset Boulevard." And I agree that this piece lacks all the moment-to-moment nailbiting qualities of a drama like that. Some spoilers follow. . . But Sophie Treadwell did things differently: an absolute pioneer of a woman reporter who interviewed the Mexican Revolutionary, Pancho Villa, reported on World War 1, marched with suffragettes, refused to take her husband's surname and wrote AND directed for the New York Stage! I suppose she didn't want to write a conventional drama about Ruth Snyder that's forgotten about as soon as the dramatic ride is over, and wanted to be a bit pioneering about this play too (though Eugene O'Neill had already written an Expressionist play for the New York Stage with a male protagonist, "The Hairy Ape.") So, yes, she writes "deliberately two-dimensional stereotypes," and names her protagonist, "Young Woman" and denies every character in the play a name except the antagonist, "George H Jones," the husband who dares to have individuality but reduces her only to her "pretty little hands." Treadwell adopts the Expressionist technique of 9 panels, like the "Stations of the Cross," though her panels end not with Resurrection but with Crucifixion, because she is not creating moment-to-moment drama at all, but showing us a horrific vision of our life as objects, caricaturing us as machines to reveal how we are trapped in a great big capitalist unfeeling machine (just like in Sheena Easton's video lol). The triumph of Richard Jones's production is how clearly and cuttingly he illustrates Treadwell's vision, how claustrophobic and revelatory he makes it. Unlike you, I agree with drmaplewood that Rosie Sheehy finds an "incredible" amount of humanity in all the robotic motions she has to march through. I really think there is a place for a revelatory dark Expressionist vision of humanity like this, alongside typical dramas, written by a pioneering feminist who could see the coming of AI and machines taking over the world more than a hundred years ago. Obviously don't put it on at the Gielgud though.  |
|
1,470 posts
|
Post by mkb on Apr 16, 2024 12:13:27 GMT
Another part of my issue with Helen is that there is no descent, i.e. no gradual realisation she cannot fit in with society. Right from the off on the subway carriage, she is an outsider, all angsty and apparently already in the middle of some mental breakdown. In the next scene, in the office, we see workers rubbing along, automaton-like, coping with their mundanity by taking succour in the superficial. While their mannerisms are vastly exaggerated for effect, anyone used to office politics will recognise the mood evoked instantly. If Helen has ever made any effort to fit in with or tolerate her co-workers, it has happened before the timeline we witness.
The sole character presented with any degree of warmth and humanity, is, ironically, the boss. I was expecting a monster, using his power to coerce Helen into a relationship and marriage, but, if any of that happens, it is not shown nor even implied. As presented here, he comes across very much as the sort of man who *would* take no for an answer. It is interesting that in choosing to subjugate herself to an older and unattractive man, Helen comes to despise him, but when presented with a younger and sexier variant, who is far more self-interested than her husband, Helen, for the very first time, relaxes and enjoys the experience. It seems Helen is as superficial, if not more so, than the colleagues she had no capacity to relate to.
|
|
1,473 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 17, 2024 17:41:46 GMT
It seems Helen is as superficial, if not more so, than the colleagues she had no capacity to relate to. I agree with your analysis. For me, the fact that Sheehy humanises her to such a massive extent despite this, and despite her terrible choices, is why this is such a powerful production for me. Spoilers follow. . . I think Treadwell's point is that society is even more terrible than the "Young Woman" is. We know she's shallow, like you say, cos she is fixated on "wavy hair" lol. A fetishistic dream she has because all this mechanised society does is compartmentalise everybody for their parts, and she's been brought up to be part of this machine.
She even talks like a machine, like a ticker tape talking about how she hasn't found anyone with those all-important "curls:"
"that I’d like – that I’d love – But I
haven’t found anybody like that yet – I haven’t found anybody – I’ve
hardly known anybody – you’d never let me go with anybody. . ."
And she concludes in her absolutely tragic ticker tape mechanised voice: "I’ve never found anybody – anybody – nobody’s ever asked me – till
now – he’s the only man that’s ever asked me – And I suppose I got to
marry somebody – all girls do."
And there you have it. "All girls" are programmed to be destroyed by this society. She's just a computer program, confused and desperate about being part of the machine because somehow she's taken the red pill, and has become aware of her situation.
Imagine the foresight and bravado and audacity and genius of someone writing this in the 1920s, deliberately sympathising with the worst behaviour like this because the society that programmed the atrocious behaviour is even worse.
It's such a great pioneering play, so willing to do things differently. It's hard to fathom even now, a hundred years later. I completely understand your response, but I can't help thinking the current production is close to perfect.  |
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 17, 2024 18:59:46 GMT
I'm loving this thread and the different perspectives on this play.
To me, the story felt so modern and relevant. Existentialism versus nihilism. The familar pattern to many of the need of an individual who yearns to love, earns to live, and learns to comply. The desire to be accepted rather than subjected. She literally rages against the machine: against the buzzing bee-hive of the office, against her mother's old-fashioned values and lecturing, against her husband's old-fashioned mannerisms and repetition. And, of course, his hands.
Steve made the analogy that she's just a computer program, and I agree. She goes rogue against the machine instead of opting for convention and co-dependency (socially and maritally).
In today's world she'd not be getting any likes, follows or shares. She's not being heard. She's trapped in a world where everybody seems to know, understand and follow the rules. The murder of her husband, in the context of this play, is simply the device to examine and cross-examine her motivations, means and potential madness.
At the end, I felt desperately sad for her. I felt she had been let down. I felt that the world had conspired to create the inevitable malfunction and that a decent data analyst would have spotted the rogue code long before it came to do any harm: to the machine or to her.
We've not even got onto women's rights, objectification, subjugation or how the media still seems to act as some kind of social metronome, as much today as it ever did. Consider the parallel story of Ruth Snyder and the fact that even on her deathbed by execution, the 'paps' still managed to get their picture for the front pages. Ironically, splashed as "what a woman shouldn't be" rather than the modern day fetish of "what a woman should be".
This play is so relevant on so many levels. It has been a long time since a play provoked so many thoughts. I apologise if some of my thoughts lack cohesion or are not as erudite as some of the others on this thread. Mine is more of a stream of excitable consciousness.
|
|
5,138 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Apr 17, 2024 20:30:27 GMT
Two of my friends thought this was literally the worst thing they'd ever seen - which I sort of understand in a way.
It's right on the edge for me if not working at all, but I still thought Sheehy was very good so ended up with 3 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on Apr 17, 2024 21:18:21 GMT
I really liked it. I recognised many of my feelings in this story, the feeling of screaming inside when stuck on public transport (I don't use public transport for that reason). Screaming inside when my mother lovingly overfeeds me, LOL. Screaming inside when i must behave the way social norms expect me to. Obviously we all learn how to deal with such mundanity without killing anybody,
I cannot believe this was written in 1928, it seems not much changed since
|
|
|
|
Post by ix on Apr 18, 2024 10:07:08 GMT
This play is so relevant on so many levels. It has been a long time since a play provoked so many thoughts. I apologise if some of my thoughts lack cohesion or are not as erudite as some of the others on this thread. Mine is more of a stream of excitable consciousness. I think your thoughts are excellently expressed. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on Apr 19, 2024 22:25:16 GMT
Scribbling my thoughts down on the tube. Apologies if it seems horrifically disorganized I'll probably edit this in the morning when I've had a better think
Sheehy is at the top of her game constantly throughout this entire production. The set, lighting (the shadow work... god), costume and sound is superb. The ensemble is great. They create this "society" that Helen is against well. I read Sheehy's performance as depicting the traits of being neurodivergent vs. outwardly neurotypical society with her behaviours, tics, habits and manner of speaking and reaction to sound and light and interactions with others. It resonated with me personally. Prohibited felt all too familiar. I hope this was intentional in some part rather than just being an "quirky" performance because it brought a new angle to the character I had never thought of before. The feeling of neurodivergency of you being up against your own machine is a message I can't think of being presented in a show I've seen recently, and one I appreciated. What this production is sorely missing is utilising the absolute bombshells of metaphors that the script gives us and basically screams at us to use to full effect on stage with visual elements. The themes of "raging against the machine" is the most prominent of course, but I couldn't fathom a machine from the style of the production. The themes of the industrialisation and repetition of the time period, the prohibition of both the literal and social in the time period and the patriarchy so prominent in that time period up to today, present into the script felt understated and only occasionally shone through for me, confined to the requirements of the script rather than being brought onto the stage in a fully meaningful way. It felt aimless, and at some point I wondered about the direction the actors had been given for certain moments. I guess some amount of visual spectacle also detracted from what the actor's were saying. Maybe it all flew over my head but I left the theatre wondering if it could have packed even more of a punch than that ending had already done. I end up feeling mixed about the whole thing in terms of what they're trying to depict, I feel it's almost there but I'm not sure of what the director is wanting to say and what direction they are pushing in that I don't know what to change or add. The great cast and design lifts this production up singlehandedly, and I'd recommend seeing it just for them. |
|
13 posts
|
Post by rmechanical on Apr 20, 2024 3:36:13 GMT
I saw this last week from the front row of the dress circle , which afforded a picture book view.
The lighting, sound, staging and choreography were as superb as others have said so full marks to them
Rosie Sheehy provided the human element in this expressionistic nightmare with a bravura performance.
As you can tell I was very impressed with it as a piece of theatre but just failed to connect with it on an emotional level.
Perhaps if my view had been the front row of the stalls my reaction would have been different
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Apr 20, 2024 12:28:44 GMT
Agreed Rosie Sheehy is a force to be reckoned with in this - she is up there with Patsy Ferran / Lydia Wilson etc. Absolutely breathtaking to watch. The play itself isn't the easiest to follow I would say but the performances are so powerful, you can't not be gripped. I agree it fits a little oddly in the Old Vic and doesn't scale up from the Ustinov Studio but I was quite close to the stage so didn't mind. Definitely one of the best things I've seen this year |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Apr 20, 2024 17:05:46 GMT
This is a magnificent depiction of an unknown condition that subsequently became known as high functioning autism. Sophie Treadwell must have worked incredibly hard to try and understand – in a time when it had no name, no medical treatments, no understanding; a choice between straight up mental asylum (probably with EST) or social oddball (an ostracised, mistreated, outsider). Or for those who saw no other way, death. It’s fascinating and gripping watching Treadwell, who has obviously spent considerable time reflecting on an alien landscape, feel her way emotionally into the world she had observed (she must have been quite some individual herself; playright amd journalist in the 1920s in NYC, suffragist, struggling with mental health, part-Mexican).
And she gets a lot right, very right at times. Sometimes not, but for someone flying in the dark, it’s heroic work. The quiet but growing desperation of a young woman who can’t understand herself (esp. her emotional dissonance), or the world judging her, is compelling and captivating. She is utterly lost in this world with not the first clue as to why or what.
The tragedy here is the choice of so many throughout history; between the prison of a life alone or the prison of a sham marriage.
As a society, we also didn’t have a clue about this until the 1990s, and the beginnings of an understanding not much more that 15 or so years ago (mass MRI helped a lot). Blew me away this afternoon : 1928 for goodness sake! Well played Rosie Sheehy. Bingo update: this is the second tick on my 2024 asperger's bingo card after Dr Astrov at The Orange Tree. Could be a belter.
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 20, 2024 22:51:13 GMT
Saw this again this evening with my 13 / 15 yr old daughters. It moved me as much tonight as it did before. On the train home my eldest couldn't stop talking about it, analysing the contrast between then and now, and how the societal 'machine' hasn't changed much in a hundred years. Proud that both my girls took so much from a play that isn't the easiest to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Apr 23, 2024 10:44:46 GMT
There is nothing I can add to all the extremely articulate comments already made about this, just that I was very impressed with the set design (amazing) and by Rosie Sheehy- and in general. I had not seen any previous production and didn't know what the story was about until I read the programme's article. It's astonishing that this was written in 1928! I can see how some people might not like this, it is not a naturalistic dialogue - for lack of a better destription...but it's not meant to be, it's supposed to be representing how people are stuck in routines and repetitions- and how this young woman struggles with it all. It did take me a few minutes to understand what the play was trying to say, and to appreciate Rosie's acting (which for a bit I found OTT, until I realised what she was doing). Others have already remarked on Rosie's performance- she is incredible and so intense that even the other actors are looking at her in awe at the end. I've already recommended to some friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by thistimetomorrow on Apr 24, 2024 22:48:39 GMT
Possibly a slightly niche reference, but this direction really reminded me of Mountview's 9 to 5 from last year. Anyway, I enjoyed this a lot. Rosie Sheehy is an absolute powerhouse.
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Apr 26, 2024 7:34:15 GMT
I thought this was incredible, totally recommend.
|
|
|
|
Post by lt on Apr 26, 2024 14:17:44 GMT
I thought this was incredible, totally recommend. Wasn't going to go to this, as I have been to a lot of theatre lately, but all the rave reviews have tempted me, so I've booked tickets! |
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 26, 2024 17:47:52 GMT
I thought this was incredible, totally recommend. Wasn't going to go to this, as I have been to a lot of theatre lately, but all the rave reviews have tempted me, so I've booked tickets! I don't think you'll regret it. |
|
|
|
Post by lt on Apr 27, 2024 9:03:14 GMT
Wasn't going to go to this, as I have been to a lot of theatre lately, but all the rave reviews have tempted me, so I've booked tickets! I don't think you'll regret it. I'll let you know! But looking forward to it... |
|
65 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by keyspi on Apr 27, 2024 21:00:55 GMT
I thought this was incredible, totally recommend. Wasn't going to go to this, as I have been to a lot of theatre lately, but all the rave reviews have tempted me, so I've booked tickets! I've just left tonight's performance and I can only echo what the others have already said - totally worth seeing! |
|
1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 28, 2024 0:23:18 GMT
Afraid this didn't do much for me.
I went on the praise on this forum and like A Number I feel I've seen a different production.
Started off well. It was the expressionist show I was expecting showing the relentless claustrophobia of the machine the central character feel trapped in. Felt slick, well choreographed, and good use of sound.
Then after the office scene the production fell off. I'm not sure Richard Jones knew what he wanted this production to be. Did he want to play the scenes expressionistically or straight? Granted I was glad it took a step back from the office scene routine before it got monotonous. But after that the production barely reached the heights of the beginning.
There were moments that reminded me of the start, particularly the speakeasy scene. But there were times were it was difficult to understand what Jones was conveying. Like in the hospital scene I was trying to work out with the drilling man appearing whether we were seeing years passing and the main character having multiple children.
The other highlight was the scene between the main character and her lover. Beautifully done with the lighting and the two involved.
Otherwise the direction felt pedestrian and the acting was varied to say the least. Even Rosie Sheehy, who I enjoyed in Oleanna, was laying on the accent a bit thick I felt.
The other problem I have is the play itself and the scenes. They jump ahead in time to the next thing and feels jarring catching up with where the character is. Like one moment the main character has a child and the next she's being taken to a speakeasy. What happened in between? May have been an opportunity for Jones to choreograph a sequence in which we see that. And consequently I felt the energy drop each time a scene started.
As a result I didn't care at all for the main character's plight
An average 3 stars. Had moments but the rest felt pedestrian and unfocused.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Apr 28, 2024 9:42:59 GMT
But there were times were it was difficult to understand what Jones was conveying. Like in the hospital scene I was trying to work out with the drilling man appearing whether we were seeing years passing and the main character having multiple children. You don’t ask for opinions so I will add a view in case it assists anyone else. Both seem possible or not important. Also, the scene might serve as a metaphor for her life; people constantly telling her what she should do, what is normal, what is correct behaviour (taking the hospital scene literally, for her to bond with the new born). But she cannot do what society expects, and sometimes demands. She cannot comprehend the urgings, her brains is wired differently. She is not capable of the bonding. When the crescendos of criticism come, she hears only a wall of intrusive, hostile noise. She doesn’t hear individual voices. She quickly feels the need to flee - because she knows from long experience that judgement is quickly followed by condemnation and, often times, bullying. Others don't understand she has only one way of being, and she doesn't understand why they don't understand (and won't, she is a century too early for meaningful diagnosis). Imo, the scene is an interesting doorway into the world of autism written by an empathetic person who doesn’t know she is describing autism but appears to be unusually intuitive. |
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 28, 2024 12:55:10 GMT
But there were times were it was difficult to understand what Jones was conveying. Like in the hospital scene I was trying to work out with the drilling man appearing whether we were seeing years passing and the main character having multiple children. You don’t ask for opinions so I will add a view in case it assists anyone else. Both seem possible or not important. Also, the scene might serve as a metaphor for her life; people constantly telling her what she should do, what is normal, what is correct behaviour (taking the hospital scene literally, for her to bond with the new born). But she cannot do what society expects, and sometimes demands. She cannot comprehend the urgings, her brains is wired differently. She is not capable of the bonding. When the crescendos of criticism come, she hears only a wall of intrusive, hostile noise. She doesn’t hear individual voices. She quickly feels the need to flee - because she knows from long experience that judgement is quickly followed by condemnation and, often times, bullying. Others don't understand she has only one way of being, and she doesn't understand why they don't understand (and won't, she is a century too early for meaningful diagnosis). Imo, the scene is an interesting doorway into the world of autism written by an empathetic person who doesn’t know she is describing autism but appears to be unusually intuitive. Just to add that I feel that the empathy extends to the superb direction which I felt left gaps and omitted storytelling deliberately, as another insight into the world of autism. |
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on Apr 28, 2024 15:05:34 GMT
But there were times were it was difficult to understand what Jones was conveying. Like in the hospital scene I was trying to work out with the drilling man appearing whether we were seeing years passing and the main character having multiple children. You don’t ask for opinions so I will add a view in case it assists anyone else. Both seem possible or not important. Also, the scene might serve as a metaphor for her life; people constantly telling her what she should do, what is normal, what is correct behaviour (taking the hospital scene literally, for her to bond with the new born). But she cannot do what society expects, and sometimes demands. She cannot comprehend the urgings, her brains is wired differently. She is not capable of the bonding. When the crescendos of criticism come, she hears only a wall of intrusive, hostile noise. She doesn’t hear individual voices. She quickly feels the need to flee - because she knows from long experience that judgement is quickly followed by condemnation and, often times, bullying. Others don't understand she has only one way of being, and she doesn't understand why they don't understand (and won't, she is a century too early for meaningful diagnosis). Imo, the scene is an interesting doorway into the world of autism written by an empathetic person who doesn’t know she is describing autism but appears to be unusually intuitive. My earlier review was sort of dancing around the word "autism" for my own, scared, personal reasons, but it's what I meant and wanted to talk about, and I'm glad you brought it up because I was frankly too afraid to.
I've seen Machinal twice before this, and both of those productions definitely leaned fully into the expressionistic machinery that seems to be the go-to way to stage this play, looking at different university productions.
I've digested this production now and I wish I wasn't too hasty with voting and giving it such a mixed rating; it definitely sits at a solid 4.5 stars now because I think the reading of autism was what I was failing to "face" mostly because of my own life experience with it. It makes complete sense to me now, all of the oddities I thought I saw because I was viewing it not as myself, but as the "normal" that is expected of me.
It hit me only days later that maybe I'm still in the machine this production is trying to tell me about.
|
|
