Machinal - Ustinov, Bath / Old Vic

[aspieandy]

Apr 28, 2024 15:05:34 GMT blamerobots said:

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.

It's so fascinating. It's not even that it's 'hiding in plain sight' (it isn't hiding) but that, even when you are aware of what 'high functioning' is in practice, you still don't necessarily see it.

An example of this is Dr Tony Attwood - world renowned in the field (much in evidence on youtube). He was watching vidoes of his son as a child one evening with his wife and all of a sudden he saw it. His son was 30 then with a life of school/social exclusion, drink/drug abuse and jail behind him. No one saw it including his expert father.

Perfectly reasonable that people don't pick it up even in this superb telling. I understand things are better is schools now as staff are trained to look for specific traits; catchng them early is key (before they begin masking).

[kate8]

I’m also autistic and agree this really seems to depict autism, especially the feeling of sensory overload, e.g. with the young woman’s reaction to the crowded train, and the drill depicting all the sensory stuff around hospital/birth/babies. She just made sense to me from an autistic perspective. I haven’t read the play, so am wondering if this is in the writing or a particular interpretation of the character. It’s surprising that autism hasn’t been mentioned in any of the press reviews or publicity I’ve read.

[blamerobots]

Apr 28, 2024 19:31:51 GMT kate8 said:

I’m also autistic and agree this really seems to depict autism, especially the feeling of sensory overload, e.g. with the young woman’s reaction to the crowded train, and the drill depicting all the sensory stuff around hospital/birth/babies. She just made sense to me from an autistic perspective. I haven’t read the play, so am wondering if this is in the writing or a particular interpretation of the character. It’s surprising that autism hasn’t been mentioned in any of the press reviews or publicity I’ve read.

It seems ingrained in the original text to me now I've seen this production; it really does seem like Treadwell was trying to depict something that was wordless at the time and also the oppression of women who lie outside the societal norm.

Unfortunately, I think because it's one of the major studied works at drama schools and because of the rigidity of the education system and, simply put, its unfeeling attitude towards those who are neurodivergent and cannot conform to their standards of answers, alternate but valid readings like this simply don't get talked about, which leads to a lot of directors doing it fairly "by the study book" as what I like to call it.

I'm at a show right now but I'll share more thoughts in a bit..!

[edi]

Interesting all this talk about autism, because I am not remotely, yet I could totally identify with the character. My reaction to public transport is almost identical, I have got off buses over the years...

I thought that her "reactions " were the normal reaction of anyone who is forced into situations, obviously it was artistically presented in the play.

Also obvious that the final reaction wasn't normal

[David J]

The autism aspect is an interesting interpretation. As someone on the high-end of the spectrum and has participated with a theatre company that works with autistic people on all levels, I can certainly see characteristics. Just like I've seen characteristics in characters in other productions like Sam Tutty's character in 'Two Strangers' recently

Certainly the audio-overload affecting the woman with the drilling can be a sign. But I also saw the man holding the drill and his shadow over the woman looked very phallic, so to say, and given what was going on it was easy for me to think I'm watching her conceiving, reluctantly, multiple children over the years. It was only by the end of that scene when I realised that this was all happening after the birth of the first scene.

I also interpreted the way she was on the bed but the doctors were talking to the space next to her as a sign that she was not with it, especially in my interpretation from conceiving so many children from a man she doesn't love, and in her own world. But that could also be a sign of autism. My friend who saw with me however did not understand what it was meant to mean.

So that is why I think Richard Jones' direction was inconsistent. Started off strong at the start with it's depiction of this woman, autistic or not, overwhelmed in a world that is increasingly robotic and mechanised with the rapid development of technology and the rise of office work in the early 20th century, as people become holistically disconnected. A tell-tale sign of what the world is today.

But after that it lacked the clarity and finesse. Only the scene in the dark worked for me. Beautifully staged.

If the main drive of Richard Jones' production was portraying autism at a time when it wasn't known, I feel he should have done more. Partly its the problem with the script with the way it jumps ahead between scenes that prevents further understanding of the character. Like a good 5-6 years goes by between the birth and the speakeasy scenes, as I could tell when they said the age of the child in the trial scene. We could be finding out how the woman is coping as a mother in a loveless marriage, especially from an autism angle. It might have been an opportunity for Jones to do a sequence like the beginning or the honeymoon when the woman and husband arrive at the hotel when a party is on. Why exactly did the woman come along to a speakeasy in the first place?

It's great that people are discussing different themes and it's certainly brought my attention what was in the production. But in the end me and my friend and felt the autism angle was just a supporting theme and that this production was inconsistent what it was trying to achieve.

[aspieandy]

Perhaps interestingly, a similar treatment was recently given to Professor Higgins in Pygmalion, also produced at the Old Vic.

He was more obsessive/compulsive, though he was isolated, mocked, then ostracised. Again, no mention of a mental difference.

Of course, part of the reason we enjoy theatre is to join up the dots, though it obviously helps if the dots are visible enough for most to observe. That is a very interesting balance to strike.

I think twice at the same venue in recent times is quite a coincidence.

[gcbf]

I have seen this twice now (once second row once in the dress circle) and loved it both times. Sitting second row was obviously superior for the sense of full immersion and a feeling of being caught within the madness and desperation, but the circle gave quite a different, much more observational perspective (which also made me feel complicit in some ways). Lighting and sound as others have said were very good. Rosie Sheehy outstanding.

The notes about autism in this thread are very good, and I wonder whether it's also a reflection of the changing place of women since the 1920s - many of those strong norms for women no longer exist but strong neurotypical norms still do, so the feeling the play elicits (at least for me) about slowly being crushed in an unending dispassionate machine are more commonly felt now in autistic people than in women. Certainly I'm not autistic but still felt it. I do agree that that interpretation wasn't intentional from Richard Jones but comes through in the original play.

[pochard]

I have been tempted by this following a mailout with a code half price tickets, but has anyone booked & managed to get the code to work?

[ceebee]

May 1, 2024 12:20:00 GMT pochard said:

I have been tempted by this following a mailout with a code half price tickets, but has anyone booked & managed to get the code to work?

The code should unlock an offer price in the price options after Adult / Under 16's.

[pochard]

May 1, 2024 13:02:18 GMT ceebee said:

May 1, 2024 12:20:00 GMT pochard said:

I have been tempted by this following a mailout with a code half price tickets, but has anyone booked & managed to get the code to work?

The code should unlock an offer price in the price options after Adult / Under 16's.

You're quite right!  It was in such small font on the calendar page that I didn't notice it.  Thank you :-)

[meister]

Any ideas what the code might be?

[TallPaul]

May 1, 2024 16:30:41 GMT meister said:

Any ideas what the code might be?

Flash50

Sale ends 12 noon, Fri 03 May. Offer valid on performances 01–18 May.

[meister]

Thanks!

May 1, 2024 16:45:25 GMT TallPaul said:

May 1, 2024 16:30:41 GMT meister said:

Any ideas what the code might be?

Flash50

Sale ends 12 noon, Fri 03 May. Offer valid on performances 01–18 May.

[aspieandy]

Apr 29, 2024 13:09:47 GMT gcbf said:

 I do agree that that interpretation wasn't intentional from Richard Jones but comes through in the original play.

Indeed. The youtube algorithm offered this up earlier. Rosie Sheehy not getting it :

p.s.amazed to see this has got 300K views in a month.

[clarefh]

I hope this is OK to do this due to short notice BurlyBeaR.

I have a ticket for tonight’s Machinal - F15 in the stalls.

My childcare has just cancelled so I can’t make it. As it’s such short notice I’m happy to give this away for free if anyone wants it and can make it? If so message me and I can email it. Unlikely I know but thought I’d check just incase.

[g3]

So much to love about this and everything written about the production is bang on; technically it's first class, lighting and staging amazing and the sound is great - d&b Soundscape, I believe - as well as the performers totally on point.

But I left wondering, why? It says nothing new. Parts of the first hour dragged, the blackout did for a lot of people in yesterday's matinee, and when all's said and done it's a very straight up and down story. Am I missing some historical context?

[aspieandy]

May 5, 2024 17:42:35 GMT g3 said:

Am I missing some historical context?

Did you read the previous page of the thread (page 3)? Could help.

[Mark]

Struggled with this a bit tonight. For the first 20 minutes or so I just could not get with the whole tone of the piece, though I did start to warm to it as it went on and especially the more intimate scenes. It’s a very different style to your typical sort of play. Worth seeing for something totally out there and different but I’d be wary of seeing something similar again.

[lt]

Saw this on Saturday night, but didn't connect with it emotionally and found it rather cold. 

While I appreciate this is not supposed to be a naturalistic piece, I thought most of the characters felt rather two dimensional and found it difficult to have sympathy for a woman who appears to take advantage of her work colleagues, agrees to marry someone she doesn't care about for money and makes zero effort when she is married. So I found to my surprise that I had a certain sympathy for the husband, who actually appeared a slightly more rounded character.

The one time, I did feel my flesh crawl in sympathy for her was when the husband said how she used to flinch when he touched her, but most of the time I found Sheehy's performance distancing and at points melodramatic.  And I didn't feel I gained any insight into either her mental illness or psyche.

The scenes I felt worked best and I found intriguing, were the maternal hospital (with vclear Freudian tones, and, of course, Freud was very popular when this was written), the sitting room with her husband, and the courtroom.

But too many of the other scenes - such as the office - felt repetitive, and long after I had got the point continued.

Judging by the laughter last night, the audience clearly felt there were a number of humorous moments in the play, but for me, that part of the performance fell flat.

What did work very well was the staging and the highly imaginative use of light, sound and shadows.

But I came away thinking I had really learnt nothing and that there was nothing surprising or revealing about the story I had watched.

[amyja89]

There were cameras filming the performance this afternoon, which is definitely one way to guarantee everyone is in top form during a Wednesday matinee! Full house from what I could see from the mid stalls.

I enjoyed it a lot, especially the use of shadow, it’s the sort of thing that would probably reward a second watch.

With People, Places & Things last night and Machinal this afternoon, its been a heavy 24 hours or so in the theatre for me!

[sf]

Saw it tonight.

Extraordinary, shattering, thrilling, and brilliantly designed and directed and performed. I saw the Stephen Daldry/Fiona Shaw production at the National thirty-odd years ago; this one might be better, and I'm pleased to hear it has been filmed. Five stars, and certainly as good as anything I've ever seen at the Old Vic.