|
|
Post by lt on May 9, 2024 14:51:56 GMT
The Spectator not a fan:
"Like most of Chekhov’s work, this play is very tricky to pull off... If you get it wrong, you end up with a show that resembles a Channel 4 exploitation documentary about a family of inbred drunkards living on benefits. And here it is. A textbook lesson in the perils of updating Chekhov.
The show ends with a memorable act of vandalism. The trees are felled not with axes but with chainsaws which turns the bitter-sweet conclusion into a whining, choking nightmare. Ghastly".
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 13, 2024 23:15:11 GMT
Impressive. Clearly a fully invested cast making hay with a re-worked script they believed in
It's vivid, bold, perhaps challenging, certainly confident. Societal change was balanced and clear, as was comedy, tragedy and a hint of farce. I really liked the choices and thought.
Nina Hoss held it all together most excellently >>
I can’t put my finger on why a a cappella verse of Angel of Montgomery hit hard but it did.
Found this surprisingly terrific. Unapologetic art: * 4 1/2
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 13, 2024 23:17:03 GMT
This is a production still belonging to Longhurst's artistic direction. Timothy Shearer's first production has not been announced yet.
You are correct. Longhurst up to and including The Skeleton Crew.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 16, 2024 5:43:46 GMT
I was comprehensively bored by this one, I was looking at my watch from 45 minutes onwards. I liked his Three Sisters but here, unlike the Robert Icke Uncle Vanya, the directorial interventions didn't illuminate new aspects of the play at all, they just came across as self-indulgence and they weren't even novel, just the same tired old Brechtian tropes that we've been seeing for the past 50 years - the third wall broken, lights on, and everyone gets to sing a song, albeit only songs that are intended to impress us with the middle-aged director's taste in music rather than having any relevance to the play. Although Nina Hoss didn't get to sing - why not ? Maybe he didn't dare ask her. And everyone was talking the same too - like the director I assume - the same slang and insults whether the character was 16 or 86 or a servant or an aristocrat which seems very odd and is not realistic at all.
I liked Nina Hoss and Adeel Akhtar and it was a pity they'd been invited to take part in a pantomime version of the play. A couple of scenes they were in towards the end when the director had run out of ideas and were played almost according to the text were quite good. The rest of the cast did plenty of self-conscious "acting" more akin to the improvisation that happens in early rehearsals to develop the characters and poor old Eanna Hardwicke's comedy shtick was greeted with stony silence from the audience. Not sure why they needed to gender-swap Firs but I was glad to see June Watson still going strong.
2*
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 16, 2024 6:03:02 GMT
Like I said, being a conservative personality type .... is a great advantage in many situations, especially related to survival by not taking undue risks, but it will not have been an advantage for any critic who saw this show.  The view that it is somehow the fault of the audience when they don't like a show is common amongst those auteur directors who regard themselves as "edgy" - for that reason they will regard 2* reviews (from media outlets they disapprove of anyway) as affirmation that the production has succeeded. Likewise criticism from the likes of me - however in reality in theatrical terms I'm not a "conservative" - for example I thought the Michael Sheen Hamlet was the greatest production of the play I've ever seen and that was about as far from a traditional production as it was possible to be. |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 16, 2024 12:17:56 GMT
Like I said, being a conservative personality type .... is a great advantage in many situations, especially related to survival by not taking undue risks, but it will not have been an advantage for any critic who saw this show. The view that it is somehow the fault of the audience when they don't like a show is common amongst those auteur directors who regard themselves as "edgy" - for that reason they will regard 2* reviews (from media outlets they disapprove of anyway) as affirmation that the production has succeeded. Likewise criticism from the likes of me - however in reality in theatrical terms I'm not a "conservative" - for example I thought the Michael Sheen Hamlet was the greatest production of the play I've ever seen and that was about as far from a traditional production as it was possible to be. Indeed, and you liked the Young Vic's "Three Sisters" as well, so definitely not someone who disapproves of Andrews' techniques per se. The post you quote was intended as a caution to conservative types, who disapprove of such techniques, to save their hard earned money on this one, as they definitely won't like it. Everyone else, open to the use of such techniques, will be free to judge whether they are well used. You think not, and that's fair. I had a rousing emotional reaction to this, so the techniques worked well for me, as did everything else, so I did in fact rate this highly, though I'm probably innately more conservative than you (I adore safe and cosy, traditional and period, large effects and pretty vistas lol). |
|
2,476 posts
|
Post by zahidf on May 16, 2024 12:36:35 GMT
I enjoyed the staging and acting for this, so a win for me. Though i acknowledge that i didnt really feel the emotional aspect of it, as i found the characters pretty annoying in the choices they make
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 16, 2024 12:40:22 GMT
The audience when I went were engaged and willing to go on this journey. It seems perfectly reasonable that one person/director's 'edgy' might be anothers art. The former suggests trite, the latter ambition. Ambitious directors will miss. See Andrew's cv for which type he might be. Also, I did wonder about the round in this producton, that it might be one where it pays to be at Stalls level. There was no 'round' above that - just a large, carpeted wall*. More, it seemed quite intimate below.
* I would have liked to see her get the vacuum up there
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 16, 2024 13:29:41 GMT
The view that it is somehow the fault of the audience when they don't like a show is common amongst those auteur directors who regard themselves as "edgy" - for that reason they will regard 2* reviews (from media outlets they disapprove of anyway) as affirmation that the production has succeeded. Likewise criticism from the likes of me - however in reality in theatrical terms I'm not a "conservative" - for example I thought the Michael Sheen Hamlet was the greatest production of the play I've ever seen and that was about as far from a traditional production as it was possible to be. Indeed, and you liked the Young Vic's "Three Sisters" as well, so definitely not someone who disapproves of Andrews' techniques per se. The post you quote was intended as a caution to conservative types, who disapprove of such techniques, to save their hard earned money on this one, as they definitely won't like it. Everyone else, open to the use of such techniques, will be free to judge whether they are well used. You think not, and that's fair. I had a rousing emotional reaction to this, so the techniques worked well for me, as did everything else, so I did in fact rate this highly, though I'm probably innately more conservative than you (I adore safe and cosy, traditional and period, large effects and pretty vistas lol). Am confused. Hated Sheen’s Hamlet so I’m gonna be in trouble for this, squirming until the interval when I will leave? Or will I love it? Or just shrug? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 16, 2024 15:38:43 GMT
The audience when I went were engaged and willing to go on this journey.
How could you tell that ? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 16, 2024 16:03:03 GMT
Indeed, and you liked the Young Vic's "Three Sisters" as well, so definitely not someone who disapproves of Andrews' techniques per se. The post you quote was intended as a caution to conservative types, who disapprove of such techniques, to save their hard earned money on this one, as they definitely won't like it. Everyone else, open to the use of such techniques, will be free to judge whether they are well used. You think not, and that's fair. I had a rousing emotional reaction to this, so the techniques worked well for me, as did everything else, so I did in fact rate this highly, though I'm probably innately more conservative than you (I adore safe and cosy, traditional and period, large effects and pretty vistas lol). Am confused. Hated Sheen’s Hamlet so I’m gonna be in trouble for this, squirming until the interval when I will leave? Or will I love it? Or just shrug? It is King John all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 16, 2024 16:28:14 GMT
The audience when I went were engaged and willing to go on this journey.
How could you tell that ? Becasue I was sitting at the side, above the Stalls, and it was . bright
Also because it is part of the pleasure for me to glance across.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on May 16, 2024 22:13:44 GMT
Well, how disappointing was this? And where did those 5* reviews come from? Bizarre.
Loved BA’s Three Sisters at the Young Vic however many moons ago, but this was just dead dead dead. The acting styles all over the shop, including that deadly just-speak-with-no-emotion-or-meaning vibe younger actors seem to have fallen into. Nina Hoss was good, but not great, and the less said about the disco the better.
I didn’t care for anyone on that stage, not even dear June Watson. And the people sat next to Nina Hoss sadly left at the interval.
And why on earth hasn’t anyone done anything about the gun wielding Epikhodov wearing a Virginia Tech jacket? Yikes. I get “the point”, but distasteful, surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 17, 2024 5:42:20 GMT
How could you tell that ? Becasue I was sitting at the side, above the Stalls, and it was . bright
Also because it is part of the pleasure for me to glance across.
Well, I could see the audience too but I couldn't tell what they were thinking. From what I could tell the audience when I was there were as split as the reviews, there were about 10 who gave a standing ovation at the end (the 5* group) and about 10 who left at the interval (the 1*). Of the rest only about 3-4 of them ever laughed out loud for the comedy moments. At the end the views of the people immediately sitting around me were negative (one called the whole experience "punishing") but no doubt there were positive views from others. There were a few Germans near me too presumably there for Nina Hoss so they probably liked it. As you liked it I'd be interested to hear your take on this bit: In the text there's a bit where they are all lying around outside and a tramp/stranger come in begging for money and scares them. Conventionally he is presented as a threatening potentially violent character and the implication is clear - the Russian revolution is coming in a few years and people like him will sweep away everyone in the family. In this production though it was a small boy who asked the way (as per the text) but then sang a long song that I wasn't familiar with and which didn't seem to relate to anything at all. Then he got his money and left. What was the point of that ? Why would Varya be scared of him (per the text) ? Did you know what the song was and did that somehow convey a message of some sort ? For me it was just a few wasted minutes |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 17, 2024 16:45:28 GMT
SPOILER ALERT!! + got to dash to the Royal Court >>
@jan It's a beautiful song. The key lyric is this, better to include the lyric than the whole song imo. I was affected, which is quite rare >>
Just give me one thing
That I can hold on to
To believe in this livin'
Is just a hard way to go
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 17, 2024 22:10:57 GMT
I didn’t like this at all, and I really wanted to. Having never seen The Cherry Orchard nor anything directed by this person I had no idea what to expect, and was really disappointed. I hated the way it was staged, the lights were directly on my eye line in second row all the first act which didn’t help.
it felt like there are too many actors and it’s very hard to work out who they are id you aren’t familiar with the play- or to even care about them. As there is nowhere for anyone to sit or lean on they keep pacing and running around the stage in a way that was exaggerated/ forced/
It was all confusing and slightly unhinged, including the costumes. The acting was over the top and weird.
I haven’t made up my mind if it’s the play I didn’t like much or the production or both. Likely both! I was bored and completely indifferent to anyone’s plight in the story. Lady sat next to me left at the interval, I should have done the same…only saving grace of this evening was the free wine.
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 18, 2024 6:38:32 GMT
I didn’t like this at all, and I really wanted to. Having never seen The Cherry Orchard nor anything directed by this person I had no idea what to expect, and was really disappointed. I hated the way it was staged, the lights were directly on my eye line in second row all the first act which didn’t help. it felt like there are too many actors and it’s very hard to work out who they are id you aren’t familiar with the play- or to even care about them. As there is nowhere for anyone to sit or lean on they keep pacing and running around the stage in a way that was exaggerated/ forced/ It was all confusing and slightly unhinged, including the costumes. The acting was over the top and weird. I haven’t made up my mind if it’s the play I didn’t like much or the production or both. Likely both! I was bored and completely indifferent to anyone’s plight in the story. Lady sat next to me left at the interval, I should have done the same…only saving grace of this evening was the free wine. having slept on it and being unable to edit my post, I have a couple points to add. It felt like not even the actors cared much for any of it, I don't know if the fact that they all sit next to audience members adds to this impression...I was in a corner of row BB and sitting next to the youngest and oldest women. The former kept smiling and making eye contact with the actors sitting at the opposite end of the stage. In fact, they all kept doing this sort of thing even during the play. It just felt like this was a dress rehearsal. Maybe it was intentional? whatever it was, it was distracting and odd. In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke. |
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on May 18, 2024 6:45:38 GMT
I agree with those who didn’t feel the singing worked, but (unlike Jan’s experience) when I went there was a lot of audience laughter, particularly in the first hour, and I think that made it a lot easier to enjoy the style of this production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 18, 2024 9:16:39 GMT
In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke. In general the adaptation is very close to the original in terms of the characters and plot and the scenes and so on. It is updated of course but even things like the business with the vapes is there in the original but with cigars. The only major addition, beyond bits of staging, are the songs. In a conventional production the hardest character to carry off is Charlotta and the magic trick stuff is in the original, it is hard to make any sense of that character - I thought here actually that was quite well done mainly because the rest of the production followed her lead and was equally odd. The central focus of conventional production is the Lopakhin/Varya relationship, it's why actors like Simon Russell-Beale get mis-cast as Lopakhin, but here that was totally thrown away, it was hard to believe they were anything other than strangers to each other. The first production of this play I saw was excellent and I rated the play highly but subsequently I've come to see it as the least good of the four great Chekhov plays. |
|
|
|
Post by lt on May 18, 2024 9:21:34 GMT
I agree with those who didn’t feel the singing worked, but (unlike Jan’s experience) when I went there was a lot of audience laughter, particularly in the first hour, and I think that made it a lot easier to enjoy the style of this production. I'm puzzled why other people laughing make it easier to enjoy the production? |
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on May 18, 2024 10:12:53 GMT
I agree with those who didn’t feel the singing worked, but (unlike Jan’s experience) when I went there was a lot of audience laughter, particularly in the first hour, and I think that made it a lot easier to enjoy the style of this production. I'm puzzled why other people laughing make it easier to enjoy the production? I suppose because being in an audience is a communal activity, and being among people who are relaxed and laughing makes me more likely to share that reaction. This production is meant to be funny, so I doubt I’d have enjoyed if if I’d been on a night when the audience wasn’t receptive to the jokes. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 18, 2024 10:18:33 GMT
Fwiw, I liked the rubbish, faux attempts to mimic western Bohemia (yes, we've just come from Paris, dahhling). Even the decadence is mannered.
You can almost see it mirrored today in the lifestyles of some Russian Oligarchs (and wives!). Which may explain the occasional modern intrusion.
So a Russian play in which the author mocks posh Russians for trying to be western, etc, etc (<< perhaps cutting edge comedy, if you are Russian in the 19zeros. Perhaps not entirely unamusing nowadays)
|
|
|
|
Post by lt on May 18, 2024 10:27:12 GMT
I didn’t like this at all, and I really wanted to. Having never seen The Cherry Orchard nor anything directed by this person I had no idea what to expect, and was really disappointed. I hated the way it was staged, the lights were directly on my eye line in second row all the first act which didn’t help. it felt like there are too many actors and it’s very hard to work out who they are id you aren’t familiar with the play- or to even care about them. As there is nowhere for anyone to sit or lean on they keep pacing and running around the stage in a way that was exaggerated/ forced/ It was all confusing and slightly unhinged, including the costumes. The acting was over the top and weird. I haven’t made up my mind if it’s the play I didn’t like much or the production or both. Likely both! I was bored and completely indifferent to anyone’s plight in the story. Lady sat next to me left at the interval, I should have done the same…only saving grace of this evening was the free wine. having slept on it and being unable to edit my post, I have a couple points to add. It felt like not even the actors cared much for any of it, I don't know if the fact that they all sit next to audience members adds to this impression...I was in a corner of row BB and sitting next to the youngest and oldest women. The former kept smiling and making eye contact with the actors sitting at the opposite end of the stage. In fact, they all kept doing this sort of thing even during the play. It just felt like this was a dress rehearsal. Maybe it was intentional? whatever it was, it was distracting and odd. In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke. I think - aside from the criticisms I've already made - this is a particularly confusing production for those new to The Cherry Orchard. It really feels like a case of The Emperor's New Clothes to me. It's the only time I've left a theatre feeling duped, I actually wrote to the Donmar to complain about the production, I've never done that before for any other show in any other theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 18, 2024 11:50:27 GMT
In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke. In general the adaptation is very close to the original in terms of the characters and plot and the scenes and so on. It is updated of course but even things like the business with the vapes is there in the original but with cigars. The only major addition, beyond bits of staging, are the songs. In a conventional production the hardest character to carry off is Charlotta and the magic trick stuff is in the original, it is hard to make any sense of that character - I thought here actually that was quite well done mainly because the rest of the production followed her lead and was equally odd. The central focus of conventional production is the Lopakhin/Varya relationship, it's why actors like Simon Russell-Beale get mis-cast as Lopakhin, but here that was totally thrown away, it was hard to believe they were anything other than strangers to each other. The first production of this play I saw was excellent and I rated the play highly but subsequently I've come to see it as the least good of the four great Chekhov plays. Thank you for explaining- I never would have guessed that Lopakhin and Varya are usually the central focus. I actually didn't get what Akhtar did/said to her at the end when she was laying on top of the carpet. But I had long since stopped caring at that point, I just wanted the whole thing to end and go home. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 18, 2024 11:53:59 GMT
I think - aside from the criticisms I've already made - this is a particularly confusing production for those new to The Cherry Orchard. It really feels like a case of The Emperor's New Clothes to me. It's the only time I've left a theatre feeling duped, I actually wrote to the Donmar to complain about the production, I've never done that before for any other show in any other theatre. Did you ? Ha ha. Well done. Do let us know what (if anything) they say. I did wonder whether those new to the play would know who the characters were and what was going on. It was my 8th production of it so I just about knew but not necessarily from what was presented on stage. |
|
