2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 18, 2016 22:18:22 GMT
O I'm sorry I posted this before you guys had seen it. I forgot you were seeing it this week. Should have tried to post together. I hope I haven't spoilt anything for you. Yes, Jan I did think there were moments when Frayn's script seemed sharper than Hare's but overall I preferred the NT version. Don't worry, it's not spoilt it for me, I'm going to be spending the whole thing trying to work out just how it was different to the NT one anyway, I can't help doing that when I've seen something before and liked it. |
|
37 posts
|
Post by johng on Dec 18, 2016 23:03:23 GMT
Saw this last week, and thought it was much inferior to the Chichester version. The first half is 20 minutes shorter than the Hare version but felt much longer. Some great actors in this production but when Geoffrey Streatfeild and Jo Herbert seem at a loss as to how to make the play work, not much is going well. Every character seemed inferior to the Hare version. It felt they were struggling to fit the tragic and farcical elements together, and the transition between the two was jarring, something that never happened in Chichester.
Possible I simply prefer Hare to Frayn, as in this case the source material is so unfinished that it will have more the stamp of the adaptor than the author.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Dec 19, 2016 4:47:07 GMT
Maybe it's just as well if you are seeing this, not to have seen the CFT/NT version? I regret missing it but at least I will have nothing with which to compare this one!
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 19, 2016 14:12:01 GMT
Just read Jane Edwards's review in Times Culture section. I couldn't agree with her less! I saw the Planonov at the National and I think it was by far the better adaptation of this early piece. She has Hampstead as better. What Chekhov left is anyone's guess but it had some resonance at the NT. Hampstead has a different ending which doesn't work and a set and lighting that do not convey what the script is saying, hot beautiful night etc..and old estate. Most of the cast seem unsure what they are playing, comedy or tragedy and so it falls flat with the farce and goes too deep with the tragic moments though you can't help but think that the tragic moments are what interested Chekhov more. It drags especially in the first half, falling into the trap of conveying tediousness tediously. Geoffrey Streitfeild is an actor I usually admire but here he seems to be lost and not in a good way. He isn't presented as sexy enough, clever enough or funny enough. Even physically he is awkward. I was very disappointed. Luke warm reception at the end. Maybe the death of Howard Davies affected this production although Jonathan Kent is a brilliant director and I'm surprised he didn't pull this together. Do you have a link to this article, lynette? Failed to find it online somehow.. Haven't seen Hampstead version to compare yet but it's always interesting to observe. I'm sorry I don't have link. Paper in the recycling... |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 20, 2016 8:07:39 GMT
I have seen four different productions of this play (and three of them were directed by Jonathan Kent).
The 1984 McKellen version of the Michael Frayn text was a big hit at NT and transferred to Broadway but I thought it was no more than OK. The problem (to be repeated) was that there was an inconsistency of tone within the play with scenes veering uneasily between tragedy and comedy and farce. Later it emerged McKellen himself had had problems with this, he’d struggled in rehearsals and considered withdrawing and he claims it was not until the first preview with an audience “I realised it was a comedy” and he found a way to play it.
In 2001 I saw the Sir David Hare text in an Almedia production in an old railway shed at Kings Cross. The staging in such a large space was a bit distancing for the domestic scenes but obviously good for the train. The actor playing Platonov needs to have some sort of charisma so you can see what all the women see in him – Aidan Gillen in this production was quite good.
The 2016 NT production of the Sir David Hare text we have all seen. Now this production of the Frayn text.
To start, I think the Frayn text is much more consistent and coherent as a play. With 5-6 hours of source material to choose from it is significantly different from the Sir David Hare text although I think the latter is probably closer to the original. The Frayn version is also better written with none of the clunky Americanisms of the latter. (Frayn also speaks perfect Russian so worked directly with the original rather than via a literal translation).
The two main problem remain. Is it a tragedy or a farce or both ? Does Platonov convince ?
Jonathan Kent is not really the director to resolve these problems of tone, I rate him highly but he has never demonstrated much of a gift for comedy and the Frayn version tends towards that conclusion. At moments the ensemble work which was a feature of Howard Davies productions was visible but it is not clear how much input he had. Overall the direction here looked a bit vague.
On the other problem Geoffrey Streatfeild is a charisma-free zone as far as I am concerned, it is literally unbelievable that the women would see anything in him. He is by far the least effective of the four actors I’ve seen play the role.
Ultimately as a production I think the recent NT one was better.
But, overall, quite a good production and mercifully short given the desperately uncomfortable seats at Hampstead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 8:32:02 GMT
The 2016 NT production of the Sir David Hare text we have all seen. You mean the 2015 Chichester Festival Theatre production. I didn't see it, for one. |
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 20, 2016 8:51:56 GMT
Well, for me Mr. Streatfeild is a bucketful of charisma per se, but if he's managed to make his Platonov unattractive (in a role where attractiveness is essential) I'll be very VERY much surprised! )
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 20, 2016 9:10:03 GMT
The 2016 NT production of the Sir David Hare text we have all seen. You mean the 2015 Chichester Festival Theatre production. True, my mistake, wrong to give NT any credit for it. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 20, 2016 9:17:35 GMT
Have to agree with Lynette, this left me pretty cold whilst I bounced out of the NT version. I so wanted to like it but it did seem rather lost, not sure what it was about and actors who are normally utterly reliable to be good didn't seem to be quite working. As a character I wasn't convinced that all these woman would be throwing themselves at Platonov, if anything having seen the NT's Ivanov he seemed to have more echoes of that. Can anyone better informed throw any light on the ending, I know that it was an unfinished play but is the ending unwritten, unclear, hence the different interpretations. I couldn't tell from this one if he was meant to be running to or from destruction.
Jan Brock I did enjoy staring at the front stalls wondering which was you, I assume you were none of the following people, audience members breaking part of the circle rail and trying to fix it in a very quiet scene, the man talking loudly with the usher re inaudibility, audience members talking loudly between and into scenes, the woman who gave me a mince pie?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 9:25:35 GMT
Jan Brock I did enjoy staring at the front stalls wondering which was you, I assume you were none of the following people, audience members breaking part of the circle rail and trying to fix it in a very quiet scene, the man talking loudly with the usher re inaudibility, audience members talking loudly between and into scenes, the woman who gave me a mince pie? The man with a Mittel European accent who was dressed as a badger? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 20, 2016 9:48:47 GMT
Have to agree with Lynette, this left me pretty cold whilst I bounced out of the NT version. I so wanted to like it but it did seem rather lost, not sure what it was about and actors who are normally utterly reliable to be good didn't seem to be quite working. As a character I wasn't convinced that all these woman would be throwing themselves at Platonov, if anything having seen the NT's Ivanov he seemed to have more echoes of that. Can anyone better informed throw any light on the ending, I know that it was an unfinished play but is the ending unwritten, unclear, hence the different interpretations. I couldn't tell from this one if he was meant to be running to or from destruction. Jan Brock I did enjoy staring at the front stalls wondering which was you, I assume you were none of the following people, audience members breaking part of the circle rail and trying to fix it in a very quiet scene, the man talking loudly with the usher re inaudibility, audience members talking loudly between and into scenes, the woman who gave me a mince pie? Oh was it a breaking circle rail ? I wondered what it was, I assumed it was a departing audience member with poor walking stick control. No, I wasn't any of those, also I wasn't any of the multitude in the front stalls coughing like it was a TB ward in 1916. Didn't spot you unless you were the lady nonchalantly steadying herself against the box office during the interval. |
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 20, 2016 11:03:49 GMT
Can anyone better informed throw any light on the ending, I know that it was an unfinished play but is the ending unwritten, unclear, hence the different interpretations. I couldn't tell from this one if he was meant to be running to or from destruction. peggs, the ending is pretty obvious in the original version of the play by Chekhov I've read and no sights of it being unwritten, only raw and a bit wobbly but we can forgive that considering he was only 18 (yes, 18, that's right, I wonder why every single bit of info in English says he was 20). Never came across Wild Honey interpretation though.. |
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 20, 2016 11:42:13 GMT
So what is in the original ending? The NT had him being shot and killed by accident and then a lovely 'mourning scene' with a few ends tied up and the money thing was clearer at the NT with the doctor begging for money from his father and a reconciliation between the old guy with the money and his son, both going to Paris. Am I right, have I remembered it ok? Not broken out the Baileys yet but you know, time of the year. The liqueur chocs already gone.
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 20, 2016 12:52:33 GMT
In the original it ends rather abruptly - the last scene is Platonov's dying and everyone's gathering round, all sighs and omgs, trying to pretend it was God who stroke Platonov for him being a judger of others and a drunk.. But it wasn't an accident alright. Sofia (no matter how hysterical she was - she knew what she was doing) fires twice - first time she misses and then Grekova stands between her and Platonov trying to protect him but fails. Anna Petrovna could not quite believe he's gone. Seems she was the only one who realised a great potential went to waste in him.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 20, 2016 19:05:49 GMT
I thought that too but according to my neighbours it was a bit of accidental circle breaking. Well I was leaning against a pillar in the interval downstairs but I doubt I'd have pulled off nonchalant. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 22:36:20 GMT
Is Kolya meant to fall over when he comes through the door in the final scene? Judging by Anna Petrovna's reaction tonight I'd say no, but the whole ending was so weird and unexpected maybe it was intentional...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 10:40:28 GMT
Well. I don't quite know if it was because I was tanked up on mince pies and sloe gin or just didn't read the programme properly but I didn't realise that it's pretty much the same bloomin' play as the one at the NT recently just with a different title. Sneaky.
Anyhoo. Is it a requirement that all Chekhov plays have to have a lot of trees on stage? Do they use the same trees and just move them from production to production?
Play was entertaining enough. Think I preferred the NT one though. Geoffrey Streatfeild was delightful. He's not the obvious local lothario but he does manage to convince otherwise through sheer force of personality. However, I wouldn't have let him grow his hair. It's a bit, shall we say, thin.
Lovely performance from Joe Bannister as Sergey too.
Funny ending though. Not funny haha but funny odd. Audience started clapping because they thought it had ended and then there was another quick bit at the end. They didn't know whether to clap or not after that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 11:58:29 GMT
Were you there last night too, Ryan?
Agree about the ending. Personally I was surprised when people started clapping after the train bit, because I was thinking, 'Well that's not how the story ends'... but then it transpired that was how this story ended. Which threw me a bit for curtain call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 12:11:04 GMT
Were you there last night too, Ryan? Agree about the ending. Personally I was surprised when people started clapping after the train bit, because I was thinking, 'Well that's not how the story ends'... but then it transpired that was how this story ended. Which threw me a bit for curtain call. No, I was there on NYE. Just now coming out of my sloe gin stupor to post more camp old nonsense for 2017!  The ending is very strange. I think it's because the lights fade after the main scene so it seems like the end, hence some applause, and then, oops, we actually get another bit that lasts for like 10 seconds before the lights fade again. It's like the audience are thinking "Ha, you aren't going to fool us a second time Mr Director". |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 4, 2017 12:33:30 GMT
Well. I don't quite know if it was because I was tanked up on mince pies and sloe gin or just didn't read the programme properly but I didn't realise that it's pretty much the same bloomin' play as the one at the NT recently just with a different title. Sneaky. Anyhoo. Is it a requirement that all Chekhov plays have to have a lot of trees on stage? Do they use the same trees and just move them from production to production? Play was entertaining enough. Think I preferred the NT one though. Geoffrey Streatfeild was delightful. He's not the obvious local lothario but he does manage to convince otherwise through sheer force of personality. However, I wouldn't have let him grow his hair. It's a bit, shall we say, thin. Lovely performance from Joe Bannister as Sergey too. Funny ending though. Not funny haha but funny odd. Audience started clapping because they thought it had ended and then there was another quick bit at the end. They didn't know whether to clap or not after that. Ryan you do make me laugh!
Yes must have trees.
I agree re Geoffrey Streatfeild's hair, from the bank of the circle I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to establish if there was a bald spot to spot.
Having had a while to digest this production and having read a few reviews which suggested they were trying to do slightly different things and therefore I shouldn't just simply compare them I decided I liked this better than I originally thought, how could I not like Geoffrey?!
My audience was similarly confused by ending, clapped early and then didn't for what seemed a long time as we waited to see if it had really finished.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jan 5, 2017 0:09:14 GMT
No confusion at the ending tonight but uncertainty of tone is definitely a problem for this play. We had Tom Attenborough reading in as the Colonel (announcement beforehand that the original actor had been taken to hospital but was ok) and that added to the general muddle, I think. But Geoffrey Streatfeild is adorable and I didn't see the NT version so overall was glad I saw this.
I like Hampstead as a theatre but agree with the comment further up this thread that the seats are hideously uncomfortable.
My pre-visit email from Hampstead contained the line "You might also like: Sex with Strangers". Bit presumptuous, I thought...
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 14, 2017 23:13:02 GMT
Saw the matinee today and though this has been mentioned above, I was still surprised by how farcical and funny this turned out to be after the interval - definitely a play of two halves in that respect. Not speaking Russian, I had also not realised that "Platonov" is pronounced "Platornov" - glad I hadn't had to say it aloud for any reason!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 9:27:05 GMT
I studied Russian and as far as I know, it's 'PlatOnov'. I wouldn't put much faith in their Russian pronunciation - Streatfeild appeared to be the only one attempting authenticity on the night I went! And the less said about everyone's 'Gerasim Kuzmich' efforts, the better...
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 16, 2017 11:53:52 GMT
Haha you are dead right, jean! 
Saw this on Saturday night. Well, it appeared to be only half Platonov and half something else entirely. The play has not only been restructured plot wise, it has been set to explore the whole new territory of combining high farce with straightforward drama, in some bits more successful than others. In my dream I would combine this with NT's version which blossomed in irresistible youthful charm leaving a little room for seriousness. When Wild Honey's Misha tells Anna Petrovna 'trust me, it isn't worth it' referring to their possible future together he actually means it. The way he is struck by Sophia's appearance like she is a ghost of a long-forgotten life which triggers the restlessness in him, the thought of missed opportunities that cracks something solid within, opens up wounds he thinks he can heal with reckless desires and takes him on a very dangerous path. But then again the next second it would drop to farce and then back again and there are moments you don't know what to think of it. The prominence of As You Like It style running around the woods and bumping into the wrong person multiply times helps the entertainment and reflects general confusion of almost every character involved.
I guess the fact that the production was orphaned with the sudden death of the great Howard Davies didn't help its consistency but funnily enough at times it seems more centered than the original play with some motivations clearer and probably more logical even though surprising finale (perfect irony of allusion to Platonov unconsciously running towards distruction) but what it lacks is that effortless chaos of a hot summer night which has equal chance to either end it tears or conjure up hope for a happy day ahead.
{Spoiler - click to view}
The argument I had with my friend (who was there on the different night) is abouth whether Platonov was killing himself or was killed buy accident. For me it's clearly the latter but she said he was hesitating before jumping under the train (which he wasn't on the night I went - he just jumped and got caught on the rail). What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 13:16:04 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
To reply to rumbledoll's 'spoiler' question - the night I went, it seemed Platonov was running towards the train but at the last minute put his hands up in front of him and leaned his body back, away from it.
I quite like the ambiguity of this. Was he running away blindly, stumbled across the railway track, and it was only when the train was upon him that he came to his senses and realised, too late, where he'd run? Or was he intent on suicide and that last movement was simply a natural instinct to impending impact? My feeling was the latter, but I'd be perfectly open to being persuaded it was the former! |
|
