|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 23:23:26 GMT
I'm with lynette!
Re the women staying in the house - I wondered the same at first, but assumed it was just the way things would have worked back then; responsibility would have lain with the bloke to sort the problem out; the women's safety/comfort wouldn't have been compromised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 18, 2017 10:20:59 GMT
Saw this yesterday. I thought the staging was better than the play which was OK but a bit sub-Arthur Miller. I've only seen that sort of framing of the stage done once before, by Rupert Goold for a few minutes at the start of"Time and the Conways" in the same venue.
This has been a massive hit for NT, totally sold out at high ticket prices, I imagine it will transfer either to WE or Broadway (some external producer was involved with the NT in this I think ?)
|
|
1,477 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jan 18, 2017 11:28:07 GMT
I saw the last show, and I found it thrilling, stylish, and unique but misogynistic. Since the show is over, mega-spoilers follow. . . This show reminded me strongly (pun unintended) of a strangely intense, fiercely controlling but always affable acquaintance, from a couple of decades back, who would rave about a patterned black and white shirt I used to wear, and jokingly threaten to take it from me. After discovering his wife was leaving him, he shot her, shot his daughter, and shot himself. . . In hindsight, Mark Strong's Donald Dodd feels like that man, someone with a vision for how life should be, a vision for how women should be, a vision for how he himself should be, and when his delusions collapsed, turned to extreme violence. The thrill in this show was knowing something was off with Donald Dodd's life, knowing something terrible would happen, but not knowing what and when. How perfect the casting. Mark Strong, an actor whose very name tells you he's "strong," and whose ever-threatening physicality seems to confirm this, playing someone ostensibly so meek and mild. The suspense and inevitability of the worm turning had me squirming. The horrible thing about this show is that it seems to encourage him to turn, at least partially to justify his murder of his wife, and to a degree, the murder of all women. Clearly, the creatives intend us to view this show as a kind of fever dream, the misogyny in the lead character's head expressionistically writ large: it's not the show that is misogynist, they would argue, it's Donald Dodd. Thus the huge all-seeing eye of Hope Davis' Ingrid Dodd, the first image we see, projected onto an immense screen at the optician's office, can be read as Dodd's paranoid male fantasy of the omniscient controlling woman. That is why, inevitably, the last sentence he utters in the play, after killing Ingrid, is "I shot her in the eye." However, male paranoia in this production reaches beyond the character of Donald Dodd to pervade every scene of the play. All the men are short-sighted dreamers: Dodd dreams of an empowered life, Ray seeks release through sex, Dodd's father hopes his son will treat his wife better, Lieutenant Olsen believes he's solving a case. In fact, all of them are shown to be dupes of robotic omniscient women, who manipulate everyone around them. Elizabeth Debicki's Mona at first appears an uncalculating dreamer, like the men, until we realise she's been playing Dodd all along, that he never had a hope with her, as she was taking flowers from another man even before her affair with Dodd began. Mona's maid sees everything that happens in the apartment, dealing with those flowers, grinning knowingly at Dodd as she puts the flowers away. The omnipresence of this maid, even when Dodd is having sex, shows just how dispassionate, knowing and calculating Ingrid and her maid are, both women conspiring in the understanding that sex is just a tool of power and manipulation, and that Dodd's real affections and dreams of intimacy are merely a male weakness. Cuckolding her billionaire husband, young bride Patricia Ashbridge (played at the final show by understudy, Arabella Neale) lasciviously lures the doomed Ray (Nigel Whitmey) to her private bathroom for uncomplicated sex, like a spider lures a fly. After all, Ray is destined to so tucker himself out in this bathroom, that he can barely stand in the storm that ensures, and stumbles to his death. But the most emblematic female in the play is the omniscient Ingrid, she of the all-seeing-giant-eye who even Mona fears, brilliantly played by Hope Davis like a bored supervillain, whose subdued omnipotence seems civilised, but in fact, kills the joy and spirit of every man in her orbit. She effortlessly turns Donald's father against him, fools the Lieutenant by hiding evidence, and manipulates every facet of her husband's life, even planning his affair with Mona by asking him to sleep between herself and Mona, where he can literally be squished and sandwiched and suffocated by scheming women. It stands to reason that she has given Donald only daughters, and has tricked him into believing that raising more women in the world is his main and only satisfying function in life. The vision of this play is that females are threatening. The key symbolic image of the play is when Donald Dodd is lured by the feminine spherical beauty of the round hanging chairs in Mona's flat, tries to sit in one, and is swallowed up by it. Also, all the scene changes are like lady parts opening and closing to give birth to the stupid dupe male protagonist's delusions and ultimate doom. Truly, if ever a play has managed to visually conjure up the mechanical inevitability of doom and fate, it is this one, with the Lyttelton functioning like a machine, cranking it's way smoothly and methodically through the noirish plot, opening then cruelly closing portholes of hope. The realisation of filmic scene changes, as well as the superb storm sound effects, swallow up the lives of two men (and one female supervillain) with dazzling efficiency. Mark Strong restrains his emotions to the level of a machine in this play. It was exquisite and thrilling to see him check his natural explosiveness for so much of the duration of the show, giving the play a tantric aspect, whereby the thrill was in the wait. I got a major charge from watching this play, but I was disturbed by the po-faced male fear and misogyny that underlies it. On a side note, this production may be the first Elizabeth Debicki project where her nudity is completely warranted, as the underlying misogyny which requires her to constantly get her kit off, pervades and is the subject of the play. Overall, a unique and fascinating evening, in stagecraft, in acting, and for the slow-motion investigation of a disturbed mind. But to the extent that this play suggests that disturbed minds are not disturbed, that women are robots invented to manipulate men, and that terrible violence can be justified, well, that's plain wrong! 4 stars  |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 18, 2017 12:22:15 GMT
I must say I never saw the play as misogynistic - but you make a great case, Steve. It could also be read the other way around, as an appreciation of the power and controlling intelligence of women and the helplessness of men in the face of it, to the degree that Dodds' only recourse is the one men have always used when confronting such superiority - violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 12:24:18 GMT
Fantastic behind the scenes video into the set changes of the play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 12:26:32 GMT
I didn't see the show but David Hare has been lauded for decades for the roles he has written for women. Of course, many people become progressively out of touch over the years.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jan 18, 2017 12:41:15 GMT
Fantastic behind the scenes video into the set changes of the play. Thank you SO much for posting that! Really fascinating and I was desperate to see how they pulled it all off! |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 18, 2017 12:56:11 GMT
Steve I'm not sure if I agree wholly with what you've written but what an explanation, thanks for that, rather more nuanced and developed that my 'why are talking so slowly and not doing up their coats' response.
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jan 18, 2017 13:48:26 GMT
The issue the video raises about a transfer is how you could fit that sort of a show into a standard theatre that lacks a massive storage space on stage left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 15:10:20 GMT
The issue the video raises about a transfer is how you could fit that sort of a show into a standard theatre that lacks a massive storage space on stage left. Without a dramatic redesign, it simply isn't possible! |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 18, 2017 20:38:36 GMT
I must say I never saw the play as misogynistic - but you make a great case, Steve. It could also be read the other way around, as an appreciation of the power and controlling intelligence of women and the helplessness of men in the face of it, to the degree that Dodds' only recourse is the one men have always used when confronting such superiority - violence. No play isn't misogynistic, neither is Othello. And Debicki doesn't appear nude and neither does she "constantly" get her kit off. |
|
1,477 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jan 19, 2017 1:04:32 GMT
I must say I never saw the play as misogynistic - but you make a great case, Steve. It could also be read the other way around, as an appreciation of the power and controlling intelligence of women and the helplessness of men in the face of it, to the degree that Dodds' only recourse is the one men have always used when confronting such superiority - violence. Agree. That was my starting point in thinking about this, that Donald Dodd is exactly like my acquaintance, who committed murder-suicide, a weak man who resorts to violence because he is confronting a "superiority" he can't control. It was after that that I started thinking that every woman in this comes across as a sociopath, but not only that, sociopaths with preternatural powers of omniscience and foresight. They feel like a vision of women with superpowers, from inside a paranoid male mind, yet their actions carry on being that way even when Dodd is not present, such as when Ingrid instantly deduces Donald's movements by smelling his jacket, or when we hear how she has swayed the mind of Donald's father against him in advance of his plea for understanding, etc, etc. I got the feeling I get in a Dirty Harry movie, or a Death Wish movie, when I am being misanthropically primed to be ok about someone being blown away in an act of extreme "justice." My general feeling is that if you take a murder-suicide type, and focus on reasons that justify that sort of behaviour, and those reasons include that all women are secretly and dispassionately coldly controlling your life, and treating you not as a human, but as a pet (eg Ingrid's statement that she picked Donald as a partner because she could "live with him," not because she loved him, which sounds like she's treating him like a pet dog, except less than that, because she probably loves her dog. And it gets worse, she is so cold she is willing to tell him to his face that he has the status less than a dog, a dog she encourages to have an affair as a kind of thought-control experiment, designed to exorcise his friskiness, or to castrate him. It all seems to imply that when Dirty Donald pulls out his Magnum 35, he's dispensing a kind of necessary justice against the arrogance of his wife. And if indeed, as appears to me, there is no recognisably human woman in this play, I would argue that the play borders on suggesting that, by extension, extreme action may be necessary against all these bodysnatchers who seek to control poor all-too-human men. But of course, these are only thoughts and opinions I am having, and I welcome reasons that show I'm wrong. I didn't see the show but David Hare has been lauded for decades for the roles he has written for women. Of course, many people become progressively out of touch over the years. Agree. Love Hare. I wonder if this play is merely shaped by Hare, and that Simenon seeded the thematic territory that I am thinking about above (in my comment to Mallardo). Steve I'm not sure if I agree wholly with what you've written but what an explanation, thanks for that, rather more nuanced and developed that my 'why are talking so slowly and not doing up their coats' response. Yep, I'm quite capable of disappearing up my own rear end, but it's better getting it out of my system and doing that on a message board, than doing it in real life, which might prompt dirty looks lol. I must say I never saw the play as misogynistic - but you make a great case, Steve. It could also be read the other way around, as an appreciation of the power and controlling intelligence of women and the helplessness of men in the face of it, to the degree that Dodds' only recourse is the one men have always used when confronting such superiority - violence. No play isn't misogynistic, neither is Othello. And Debicki doesn't appear nude and neither does she "constantly" get her kit off. Good points. I don't think Othello is misogynistic, so I agree with you there. The reason I suspect this one might be is the total absence of a normal woman in it. It feels like "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers," where a fightback might be necessary for us poor men (who just happen to be the ones who actually do most of the killing, and don't need any more reasons to do more of it). That hovering female eye looked like an attacking spaceship, at the beginning of "War of the Worlds." The females/aliens are equipped with supernatural powers of detection, and total dispassion, like alien pod-creatures. So when Dodd takes up his weapon, it's like he's leading the resistance. Obviously, that's just opinions and feelings, but I think they are ok to express on a discussion board where we express opinions and feelings, and I accept, that for unstated reasons, you read this play differently to me. Debicki is, of course, not nude in this play, but merely bare-breasted (sometimes referred to as "partial nudity," but wrongly I concede), and I would agree that it is the uncanny repetition of this scene from "The Night Manager" in such detail that engendered my use of the word "constant," though of course, she is in fact actually "nude" elsewhere in "The Night Manager." |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 19, 2017 7:37:07 GMT
Steve, you have thought longer and harder about this than I have and you're extremely convincing but it's still a leap for me to see the play as portraying these two women as "bodysnatchers". To me they're simply strong women who know what they want and work to achieve it. If it were written the other way around, if the men were the controlling ones and the women portrayed as weak and indecisive, would we be questioning the rationale of the play? Perhaps we would have other objections to that.
To me Ingrid encouraged her husband's affair because she knew him and knew her and knew it wouldn't work and wanted to have a measure of control over the situation. She was protecting herself. I don't think that makes Ingrid omniscient - it means she pays attention. I see the "hovering eye" in that regard.
I also don't think there's any tinge of "necessary justice" or "leading the resistance" in Dodd's act of murder. To me it was a shocking and unexpected act, the act of a desperately weak man, entirely unjustified by anything Ingrid had done. Dodd's perception of being controlled and constrained was his own fantasy based on the simple fact that his wife was stronger than he was.
Anyway, interesting stuff. Thanks for bringing all this to the surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 19, 2017 7:40:35 GMT
I must say I never saw the play as misogynistic - but you make a great case, Steve. It could also be read the other way around, as an appreciation of the power and controlling intelligence of women and the helplessness of men in the face of it, to the degree that Dodds' only recourse is the one men have always used when confronting such superiority - violence. I didn't see the show but David Hare has been lauded for decades for the roles he has written for women. Of course, many people become progressively out of touch over the years. Agree. Love Hare. I wonder if this play is merely shaped by Hare, and that Simenon seeded the thematic territory that I am thinking about above (in my comment to Mallardo). Steve I'm not sure if I agree wholly with what you've written but what an explanation, thanks for that, rather more nuanced and developed that my 'why are talking so slowly and not doing up their coats' response. No play isn't misogynistic, neither is Othello. And Debicki doesn't appear nude and neither does she "constantly" get her kit off. I didn't see Night Manager. Of course as I have pointed out before there's nothing the UK theatre-going public likes more than a low-brow play dressed up as something intellectual with a bit of nudity in it, and if a TV person is nude then even better (Equus, Hitchcock Blonde etc. etc.) so that partially explains the success of this one - I wonder if Sir David Hare pitched it in that way. |
|
898 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Jan 19, 2017 17:02:31 GMT
That's a little unfair on the British theatre-going public, Jan. Maybe once a decade you get a bit of nudity. The only occasions I can recall in 30 years of theatre-going here are Hitchcock Blonde and (a top half in) Red Barn. Oh, and Bent. If you spent a fortnight going to the theatre in Germany you'd see more...
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by synchrony on Jan 19, 2017 17:28:46 GMT
I really enjoyed reading Steve's comments.
I don't agree with Mallardo that Ingrid was innocent and Donald's perception of her controlling and constraining him was his own fantasy. I thought that Ingrid was highly manipulative and, personally, if my spouse watched and judged my every move like that I would be incredibly unhappy (although obviously not murder them). She turned Donald's father against him by seemingly playing the 'poor mistreated spouse', despite the fact that she'd encouraged the affair all along. Donald didn't suggest going to visit Mona in NYC - Ingrid did. I don't believe he'd have suggested it otherwise. I don't even think Ingrid cared that he was having an affair - it just meant that she could feel even more superior.
I don't think that Ingrid IS superior to Donald either. I think she's devious and cold and twists things around. Does Donald do anything that she didn't orchestrate and then use to her advantage? I agreed with Donald that she only removed the cigarette butts from the barn to make him even more indepted and controlled by her, and not out of any love for him.
I didn't see her death coming, as I was expecting Donald to kill himself, but when it happened I didn't think it was surprising.
I don't think the play is misogynistic though. For me, it was incidental that the plot involved a married couple. The concept could have worked just as effectively for me had Donald's character been a rather timid and underconfident daughter-in-law, and Ingrid's character had been the controlling mother-in-law instead (for example).
Really interesting comments from people! I'm enjoying them much more than watching the play itself ;-)
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jan 19, 2017 19:08:25 GMT
Some good thoughts, synchrony. For the record I didn't suggest that Ingrid was "innocent". Certainly she was manipulative but, IMO, it was self protective, to save her marriage. Yes, the cigarette butts were to let Donald know that she was on to him but that does not mean she was controlling his every move. Donald was always a free agent. What he couldn't live with was being so well understood by his wife - she knew him better than he knew himself. IMO she was very much his superior - a fact underlined by Hope Davis's brilliant performance - and his only answer to that was murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 0:00:33 GMT
That's a little unfair on the British theatre-going public, Jan. Maybe once a decade you get a bit of nudity. The only occasions I can recall in 30 years of theatre-going here are Hitchcock Blonde and (a top half in) Red Barn. Oh, and Bent. If you spent a fortnight going to the theatre in Germany you'd see more... Oh mate are *you* going to all the wrong plays... |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Jan 20, 2017 11:20:21 GMT
That's a little unfair on the British theatre-going public, Jan. Maybe once a decade you get a bit of nudity. The only occasions I can recall in 30 years of theatre-going here are Hitchcock Blonde and (a top half in) Red Barn. Oh, and Bent. If you spent a fortnight going to the theatre in Germany you'd see more... Oh mate are *you* going to all the wrong plays... Yeah. I've got to 11 without really thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 15:27:41 GMT
Really interesting thoughts on this and a production which has grown is stature in my mind since seeing it just before Christmas. I think I saw it as the women using the means of power they had within that specific society, a luminous performance from Hope Davis in particular.
Neither got into my top shows/performances of the year (just now very tardily posted in the general thread) but well worth the couple of hours spent with it.
|
|
