|
|
Post by max on Apr 15, 2023 21:37:56 GMT
Interesting, I wasn’t aware that they were explicitly the same location! Yes - one day someone will do the Ballybeg cycle, with the plays in historical order on the same, similar, or gradually evolving/modernising set. Though - much as I love some Friel - that might be a bit much! lol |
|
|
|
Post by max on Apr 15, 2023 21:42:33 GMT
It's wonderful that it's back at The National given that it was one of the key inspirations for Dancing at Lughnasa. When The National staged Fathers and Sons in the 1980s, Brian Friel and Thomas Kilroy walked along the South Bank and across Hungerford Bridge afterwards. The bridge was not the elegant design it is now, rather a long, open red shed that afforded a little scant shelter to dozens of homeless people. On seeing them Friel remarked to Kilroy that two of his aunts had ended up destitute in London. Kilroy encouraged him to write about it and it became one of the strands of this beautiful play. That's so interesting. I love Thomas Kilroy's writing too. Yes, horrible to remember Cardboard City in the vile rotunda that is now the Imax. Literally dozens of people living in cardboard boxes there. I remember (and I wish I'd noted the date) an evening sometime in the early to mid 2000s when I realised I hadn't seen a homeless person that night in London. We've slid right back now though, based on the strand and adjoining streets with tents etc. |
|
1,828 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Apr 15, 2023 22:30:45 GMT
I’m all for recycling pieces of scenery - the less waste the better! It’s just that the design is almost identical, but with vibrant vegetation instead of dull grass and mud. I wonder if the designer did it subconsciously or if they were encouraged to go along similar lines. Pretty much the same location 100 years apart - rural Donegal. At the time of Translations, Ireland was on the cusp of fundamental change, as was the case 100 years later. Some might suggest that Donegal hasn't changed at all since then either! |
|
1,477 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 15, 2023 22:56:49 GMT
Saw this tonight and LOVED it. If you prefer a big action driven plot, it may not be up your street, and if you prefer one of Friel's clever innovative ideas to drive the play, this might not be up your street. But if you are satisfied with well-defined human beings occupying a time and place in an exquisite and evocative memory type play, then, for me, you can't do better than this. Some spoilers follow. . . I've seen 4 Friel plays now, and this is the least clever: "Philadelphia Here I Come" had two actors playing the same part (clever); "Translations" had people speaking different languages, though on stage they all spoke English, so the audience could bridge gaps the characters couldn't (clever) and "Faith Healer" has multiple accounts of the same story, forming a Rashomon-style puzzle (clever). This isn't clever. It's an explosion of memory and feeling, a capturing of a time and a place, an exploration of different character-types and the preciousness of a moment in time where they all exist together. It's like Shakespeare's "The Tempest," where 5 sisters and a brother live on an island of time together, but you know that once that time is over, and they leave that island, nothing will ever be the same. It's about how precious those experiences in a moment of time can be, a celebration of people coming together in that time, their quirks, their relationships, their lives. For me, it was wonderful. Tom Stoppard's "Leopoldstadt" was a bit like this for me: every play I'd seen by him some sort of display of cleverness, and then "Leopoldstadt" came along and it was an explosion of feelings and family relationships, with no pretenses: the heart unfiltered, and I loved it. My only experience of this material previously was seeing the film back in the day. Although time has faded my memories of it, I prefer tonight's theatre production. That's partly because life lived in front of your eyes by living actors is more encapsulating of the living of life in the precious moment (each night being slightly different, rather than some edited frozen thing). But it's also because I prefer some things about this production than what I remember of the film: (1) Ardal O'Hanlon's brother/priest, returning from Africa changed by the culture there, is so much more vibrant and alive than Michael Gambon's film counterpart, who seemed like a ghost that never really came back at all. Consequently, the sisters really have to face up to him and deal with his newfound strangeness, rather than simply dismiss him as a dead man walking; (2) As great as Kathy Burke's portrayal of the vibrant sister, Maggie, was in the film (the moment I realised Burke could really act and wasn't just a broad comedy expert), she was marginalised (maybe everyone always gets sidelined if Meryl Streep is cast as another character lol). Here, Siobhan McSweeney's Maggie is magnificently centred as the focus of the whole play, always on stage, always reacting, the only pure guide we have to the reality of everything. She's vibrantly alive dancing, hilariously alive when teasing the others and painfully alive when confronted by whatmighthavebeens, but she's ever present and inspires (for me) complete trust as an interpreter of the other characters' actions; (3) Cos the other sisters really can't be fully trusted as bellwethers of the others' actions: Louisa Harland's Agnes is such a poignant portrait of regret that we ache for her but can't trust her insights; Justine Mitchell's overbearing yet heartbreakingly compassionate Kate has had to play mother to the others for far too long to be trusted fully in her vision of them; Alison Oliver's Chris is too wonderfully romantic to see the world as it is: and being obviously neurodiverse and an eternal child, Blaithin Mac Gabhann's Rose can only be trusted not to be trusted; (4) all wonderful performances I felt, but having McSweeney's trustworthy filter, of an objective reality, being so omnipresent and alive, was illuminating and invaluable for me; (5) the only thing I much preferred in the film was the portrayal of Chris's love interest, the Welsh fairy-like father of her child: in the film, Rhys Ifans was evidently Welsh and ethereal, charming and magically captivating while being frustratingly unreachable and evanescent; here, Tom Riley's Gerry, by contrast, appears more upper crust Sandhurst than Welsh, and comes across as an obvious bounder and cad, albeit with soft edges - this whole interpretation makes him a bit incomprehensible as a character and it makes Chris seem more foolish than she should for falling for his shower of recklessness and irresponsibility. All in all though, I was captivated by this production, and felt very moved. Obviously, you might not be, especially if you prefer more of a plot and maybe more cleverness. But for me, 5 stars.  |
|
7,053 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Apr 15, 2023 23:23:17 GMT
I saw it tonight as well and I liked it a lot. Not often does a play manages to stir the emotions and Dancing at Lughnasa does it and does it well. It's interesting that the events that befall the sisters are not of their own doing and make it a lot sadder because they are essentially victims of fate although I do wonder Why Aggie and Rose didn't apply for jobs at the knitting factory rather than leave to go to London. In terms of the cast, it's a tie between Justine Mitchell, Siobhan McSweeney and Louisa Harland on who I thought was the best and having only seen Louisa in Derry Girls, it's a pleasant surprise that she was able to pull off Agnes with such ease. Quite a mix of Irish and Americans in the audience. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Apr 16, 2023 6:25:33 GMT
Jon - there was a flurry of posts yesterday so you may not have seen that some of my post (about 6 above here) talks about the same kind of things as your spoiler comment. More generally, probably not going to make a list of points - it's tempting - though I think the way Friel gently but pointedly holds the omnipresent Catholic Church to account for what it did is so powerful. I found myself thinking more about the piece this morning than last night.
5 out of 5 Marconi radios.
|
|
1,345 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Apr 16, 2023 6:32:04 GMT
I went with some trepidation to this last night; I really didn’t enjoy Translations a few years ago at NT, my heart sank when I saw it was basically the same set, and I couldn’t understand why Friel is such a highly regarded playwright. But now I get it - this is very good.
I was still a bit sceptical at the start but about half an hour in I was really connecting with these people. Friel quietly but hypnotically draws you in and the tone becomes increasingly elegiac and you just surrender to the characters.
How does he do it? Since nothing happens but everything happens.
Beautifully played by a top notch cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by andbingowashisname on Apr 19, 2023 16:16:21 GMT
I had open arms for this, and was left only half-met by the production. Performances were decent enough, particularly Louisa Harland as Agnes, but somehow the whimsy just didn't draw me in as much as I hoped it would. The foreshadowing that the narrator provides is really where all the drama resides - meaning that not much actually happens on stage. I'm all for small moments and missed connections but I was really struggling to find much to hold onto here.
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Apr 19, 2023 16:33:16 GMT
I had open arms for this, and was left only half-met by the production. Performances were decent enough, particularly Louisa Harland as Agnes, but somehow the whimsy just didn't draw me in as much as I hoped it would. The foreshadowing that the narrator provides is really where all the drama resides - meaning that not much actually happens on stage. I'm all for small moments and missed connections but I was really struggling to find much to hold onto here. I was the same (with additional deep dislike for Gerry) - maybe I went to this with too high expectations. I feel I ought to have loved it, but I just didn't. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Apr 20, 2023 11:25:03 GMT
I had open arms for this, and was left only half-met by the production. Performances were decent enough, particularly Louisa Harland as Agnes, but somehow the whimsy just didn't draw me in as much as I hoped it would. The foreshadowing that the narrator provides is really where all the drama resides - meaning that not much actually happens on stage. I'm all for small moments and missed connections but I was really struggling to find much to hold onto here. This was my issue too. Immaculately directed and acted (at least by the sisters), the dancing especially is a huge highlight. I understand why the play is structured like it is but it feels more like a book structure. What I mean is, if you read a novel that utilises first person narration and has the main character narrating from the present day, but most of the book is his memories of the past, that works well since it's all just text that you're reading. Performance has to be show not tell, but all the plot is literally told. Tons of plot jammed into extremely plot-tense short bursts of narration, while nothing actually happens during the scenes themselves. You can have elegiac character-driven plays where nothing really happens or you can have plot plot plot. It's poignant sometimes to watch the women enjoying their summer already knowing what ends up happening to them in the future, but I needed more of a link between the dire future narrated by the adult Michael, and the summer-set scenes. I was flummoxed they made such a big deal in the first half about going to the Harvest Dance then it wasn't mentioned again. I realise it's in the original script but seeing actors doing "bending over addressing an imaginary character" acting is so deeply cringe. |
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Apr 20, 2023 12:31:41 GMT
I had open arms for this, and was left only half-met by the production. Performances were decent enough, particularly Louisa Harland as Agnes, but somehow the whimsy just didn't draw me in as much as I hoped it would. The foreshadowing that the narrator provides is really where all the drama resides - meaning that not much actually happens on stage. I'm all for small moments and missed connections but I was really struggling to find much to hold onto here. This was my issue too. Immaculately directed and acted (at least by the sisters), the dancing especially is a huge highlight. I understand why the play is structured like it is but it feels more like a book structure. What I mean is, if you read a novel that utilises first person narration and has the main character narrating from the present day, but most of the book is his memories of the past, that works well since it's all just text that you're reading. Performance has to be show not tell, but all the plot is literally told. Tons of plot jammed into extremely plot-tense short bursts of narration, while nothing actually happens during the scenes themselves. You can have elegiac character-driven plays where nothing really happens or you can have plot plot plot. It's poignant sometimes to watch the women enjoying their summer already knowing what ends up happening to them in the future, but I needed more of a link between the dire future narrated by the adult Michael, and the summer-set scenes. I was flummoxed they made such a big deal in the first half about going to the Harvest Dance then it wasn't mentioned again. I realise it's in the original script but seeing actors doing "bending over addressing an imaginary character" acting is so deeply cringe. I think by Act 2 the Harvest Dance like so much else, has passed them by. |
|
|
|
Post by matildaswinton on Apr 22, 2023 0:07:02 GMT
I thought this was absolutely spectacular. I cried more times than I can remember. I felt the need to thank the cast after the show. Not common. This is the kind of work anyone who does theatre wants to do with their life... Phenomenal piece, direction, acting, set, music and choreography…. The fact that those chairs were brought from Ireland and that radio was lent by someone… there is such heart in this show. Made this Californian weep even days after.
|
|
628 posts
|
Post by jek on Apr 22, 2023 9:02:38 GMT
I loved this unreservedly as I had the 1991 production. Obviously seeing something in my late 20s and then again in my late 50s meant I dwelt on different things. For me, like for so many other people in the audience I guess, this is in part my story. In 1936 when the play is set my dad was a 10 year old growing up in Cork with two brothers and two sisters. Within three years the whole family had relocated to Dagenham, Essex to work in the Dagenham Fords plant (one of my aunts went on to play a significant part in the equal pay fight recorded in Made In Dagenham). So many Irish families faced dislocation by emigration. Just before I saw the original London production I spent a year working with the homeless in Melbourne, Australia. So many of them were Irish. My own grandparents, dad and uncles all died young (younger than I am now) - alcohol, smoking, poor diet all played their part. And I guess some homesickness and bad conditions at work played their part too.
I thought Wayne McGregor's choreography was brilliant, as was Hannah Peel's music. There is an interesting article by Mark Lawson in the Catholic weekly The Tablet in which Josie Rourke talks about how being raised Catholic and twice weekly attendance at mass formed her as a theatre director.
My partner, who came to the play with none of the baggage I carry (he'd not seen it before and isn't of Irish Catholic stock) loved it too. He said it reminded him of the best of Dennis Potter. He was joking that my religious interests had ensured two of the best nights out this week - this and the Icelandic/Danish film Godland. I'd encourage people to see both.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Apr 22, 2023 10:34:58 GMT
I went with some trepidation to this last night; I really didn’t enjoy Translations a few years ago at NT, my heart sank when I saw it was basically the same set, and I couldn’t understand why Friel is such a highly regarded playwright. But now I get it - this is very good. I was still a bit sceptical at the start but about half an hour in I was really connecting with these people. Friel quietly but hypnotically draws you in and the tone becomes increasingly elegiac and you just surrender to the characters. How does he do it? Since nothing happens but everything happens. Beautifully played by a top notch cast. I liked a line in the 'Why Now' review by James Harvey: "one of those plays in which nothing happens, and everything changes" whynow.co.uk/read/dancing-at-lughnasa-at-the-national-theatre-review-joyous-revival-of-a-melancholic-classic |
|
7,053 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Apr 22, 2023 11:10:24 GMT
I think it's incorrect to say nothing happens. A lot happens but we don't see it because it's a memory play from Michael's perpective.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Apr 22, 2023 11:27:22 GMT
We don't experience the characters through the reflective frame of an individual. After all, Michael Evans was a baby during the period depicted. More likely, it's a mixture of stories told, cleaning up, gap-filling. As with family histories, always incomplete, often heroic in any available sense.
Friel is a very subtle writer and writing narration, imo, is a very skilful art.
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 22, 2023 19:11:14 GMT
I loved it, especially the speech at the end about the “feeling” of a time in your life….I felt like that about summers as a child, when we camped (a family of 6) on a field in Anglesey for weeks on end, caught and ate fish, just lived pretty much off grid, but listened to the shipping forecast every day (most accurate weather) and had 3 tapes for our tape player…Stylistics, Imagination and Backman Turner Overdrive! Memories we share that on-one else would understand. Like a common bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by nottobe on Apr 23, 2023 9:39:37 GMT
I went to matinee yesterday. I already posted in the thread that I was a but weary to see this as I wasn’t sure if I would like the play itself however I am a big Derry Girls fan and decided to give it a go. I have never seen a Friel live but found the BBC documentary about him very interesting.
I have to say I would describe this play as quietly devastating. For me I rarely see pieces that haunt me and I would say this I see one of them. By haunt me I mean that it was only as I was walking down the South Bank that it was hitting me and these characters were still on my mind long after the play. I had a similar experience watching After Sun and I would say there’s are actually quite a few links between this and that film about remembering your youth.
The cast were all universally great great but I particularly loved Alison Oliver as Chris. She has such a naturalist and realistic way of acting that I couldn’t take my eyes off, I can’t wait to see her in other things. The production as a whole worked well even though there were some things I think were a bit unclear.
|
|
|
|
Post by circelily on Apr 24, 2023 7:47:55 GMT
I love your review nottobe. I too experienced Aftersun like that. And am a big Siobhán McSweeney fan. You've made me want to make see this production even more.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by barrowside on Apr 25, 2023 19:41:28 GMT
I thought this production was really beautiful. It doesn't eclipse the glorious Abbey Theatre original but has so much to recommend it. I thought the girls were totally convincing as a real family of sisters. All were great and their interpretations of each character were fresh. I particularly loved Justine Mitchell and Siobhán McSweeney but Louisa Harland was a superb Agnes and both Bláthín Mac Gabhann and Alison Oliver are going to be big stars. The set is beautiful and while quite literal is really captures the golden haze of Michael's memories. It also fills the Olivier stage well while keeping the kitchen and garden intimate. I didn't care for the projections on the drapes. When we entered the theatre we thought the drapes were gorgeous and represented the Irish rain in their unlit state - I wished they'd left them as they were. Overall though it is a treat.
|
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Apr 25, 2023 23:23:29 GMT
Really liked it. Being Irish I studied Friel at school. Philadelphia. Thought it was utterly boring. In fact so much of what we learnt at school was about immigration and longing and pain and trauma and displacement. Maybe it’s all we are good for. The Irish do Intergenerational trauma like no one else…except those other societies throughout thr world with repeated significant trauma. I’d say we do it as well as them anyway.
Anyway obviously being older you have a different view. Education really happens at the wrong age. I’d seen this before but ai really likes this version. I loved Agnes, she was such a powerful figure here.
|
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Apr 26, 2023 7:31:49 GMT
I had seen the original both in the Lyttleton and later on Broadway and thought at that time that this play was a modern classic. I'm not sure why I gave the Old Vic production in 2009 a miss, but I did. That said, I think this production is as glorious as the play can be. Josie Rourke and her designers and actors are all serving the play itself, the consequence of which is that it works it is allowed to simply work its magic. There is no directorial "fixing" of the play ( Framing devices, back stage video, ridiculous Gooldian ( Herrin-like) movements etc.) It's just a great play superbly performed in a sumptuous production.
|
|
|
|
Post by cartoonman on Apr 26, 2023 8:46:31 GMT
Saw this last night and it is a fine production . I felt it needed a final tightening which I'm sure it will get as the run continues. By the way his best play is of course Faith Healer. The Royal Court production with Stephen Lewis made me see Blakey in a brand new light! I'm going on Friday. I saw Stephen Lewis years ago in a comedy production at Stratford East. He is a very good actor. |
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Apr 27, 2023 16:17:02 GMT
Well, this was rather good. 4 and a bit stars from me. On paper, Brian Friel’s plays don’t really spark that much interest for me. It turns out though that I have seen a few - Faith Healer and Philadelphia, Here I Come at the Donmar and Aristocrats and Translations at the National. All were fine, but some of these didn’t make much of an impression on me for whatever reason. Perhaps it was the perfect interaction between the cast, the languid pace, the intimacy of the piece (was in second row) but somehow commanding the Olivier, but also where I am in life looking back at memories of childhood and the past more these days, but this really hit home. I suppose my only criticism would be the slow start (but this yields dividends as the play settles into its stride), and could the plot points crammed into the penultimate monologue be fleshed out more? Can’t really say more than the reviews of Steve, jek and Latecomer, nottobe and dlevi. I suspect it doesn’t matter and probably isn’t the point of the play, but I do have spoiler questions for posters who are more familiar with the play. {Spoiler questions}
Why is the sisters’ father never mentioned (unless I missed it and this is a key point, so I will feel daft!). Was he never around?
Is there a particular reason why none of them are married? They are cast as outsiders of the village who can’t go to the Harvest Dance, only connect to the outsiders, and is this related to their lack of father/illegitimacy or lack of prospects?
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 27, 2023 20:14:13 GMT
|
|
