12 posts
|
Post by dave on Feb 21, 2016 18:42:26 GMT
Saw this on Saturday night. Still not sure what to make of it, but somehow don't think I'll be rushing to see more Sarah Kane any time soon.
Anyone booking or turning up at the venue should not be unaware of the graphic violence warnings. However the tongue scene about 30 mins in did make me consider leaving as I suddenly felt quite faint and nauseous - a new (and frankly unpleasant) experience for this regular theatregoer. However I persisted with the show and the following scenes didn't have the same very strong effect. Perhaps you just become immune.
It possibly didn't help that I had a fairly close up view from row D, as the National had at the last minute upgraded my booked seat which had been reclassified as restricted view.
Interesting to read that others had fainted/left at the same point. The extreme violence seemed to come from nowhere and the confusing play meant you had no idea what was going on or any reason for what you were seeing.
Can't wait to read the press reaction later this week...!
It did make me think of one of the most memorable productions I've ever seen - 'Mercury Fur' at Trafalgar Studios 2 a few years back. Drugs and sadistic child murder in a claustrophobic environment was far more acceptable, as the violence was largely offstage and (more importantly?) the plot could be followed and you actually identified with the characters being portrayed.
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Feb 22, 2016 11:02:36 GMT
I forgot to ask if the others who were at the Dorfman on Saturday night saw Katie Mitchell. She was in the foyer when I arrived and when I entered she smiled and came towards me. Then she put a hand on my shoulder and I thought: "How friendly!". It was only when she continued to walk towards the door that I realised she was trying to reach a friend of hers that was behind me. At least I can say that I was touched by Katie Mitchell, which put me in a good mood  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 11:05:05 GMT
When the friend spotted KM approaching, did they start to walk backwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 11:38:45 GMT
Also special mention to Graham Butler - fantastic movement. If you want someone to walk backwards in slow motion down some stairs, he's the man for you. "You know you're at a Katie Mitchell production when..." |
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Feb 22, 2016 11:51:29 GMT
When the friend spotted KM approaching, did they start to walk backwards? No, he was limping so probably he could not do that for that specific reason... |
|
2,740 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Feb 22, 2016 12:51:46 GMT
Cleansed by Sarah Kane or Touched by Katie Mitchell... there's a tough choice...
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Feb 22, 2016 13:18:01 GMT
Cleansed by Sarah Kane or Touched by Katie Mitchell... there's a tough choice... Haha, being shoved away by Katie Mitchell was less traumatic. |
|
516 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Feb 24, 2016 13:24:57 GMT
I'm surprised how naturalistic it looks really. When reading it I imagined a more fluid use of space with little set.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Feb 24, 2016 17:04:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 17:26:39 GMT
Interesting to read the reviews for this, has given me a bit more insight into what I'm in for - I think I'll have to shut my eyes and put my fingers in my ears for some of it! I'd assume they'll be happy with the reviews - I doubt they'd want the Daily Mail not to be disgusted. I think it's more or less sold out, and a bit of bluster from Quentin Letts should help to sell the rest!
|
|
2,848 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Feb 24, 2016 22:18:48 GMT
Just back from it! I knew the play before and so I knew what to expect. A part from that, there were people walking out, a lady in front of me fainted. But I think the noise I heard most frequently was yawns - I'm serious, can't people be polite enough not to yawn like f***ing lions?
It's an okay production, it has a lot of energy at the beginning, but it loses it along the way. And, funnily enough, some scenes were very explicit as the scripts needs, but others were very self-censored and the general impression was that the direction was trying to be shocking without too much convintion or, even worse, was trying to polish a brutal show.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 25, 2016 17:21:54 GMT
I couldn't tell you what this was really about but I was riveted for all 105 minutes and came away shaken to the core. I have always loved Michelle Terry but she is quite beyond praise in this - the bravest, most committed performance I have ever seen from an actress on stage.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Feb 25, 2016 19:14:17 GMT
I couldn't tell you what this was really about but I was riveted for all 105 minutes and came away shaken to the core. I have always loved Michelle Terry but she is quite beyond praise in this - the bravest, most committed performance I have ever seen from an actress on stage. Oh Mallardo if I didn't think i'd be a faint risk I'd go for that reason, I love Michelle Terry. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 26, 2016 9:50:55 GMT
I'll tell you, peggs, I was in the front row which, strangely, is the best place to be if the action onstage threatens to overwhelm you - because that close you can see some of the artifice, the pulled punches and kicks, the fact that the torturers are not doing what they seem to be doing. Further back it would all be much more real. Plus, Michelle Terry is onstage for virtually the whole play and you can keep your eyes on her when things get rough elsewhere.
My takeaway impression was not so much of individual acts, as outrageous as some are, but of the utter bleakness of the play's vision of the world - and of the courage and commitment of the actors to unwrapping it, level by level.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Feb 26, 2016 12:50:34 GMT
I'll tell you, peggs, I was in the front row which, strangely, is the best place to be if the action onstage threatens to overwhelm you - because that close you can see some of the artifice, the pulled punches and kicks, the fact that the torturers are not doing what they seem to be doing. Further back it would all be much more real. Plus, Michelle Terry is onstage for virtually the whole play and you can keep your eyes on her when things get rough elsewhere. My takeaway impression was not so much of individual acts, as outrageous as some are, but of the utter bleakness of the play's vision of the world - and of the courage and commitment of the actors to unwrapping it, level by level. Usually this is not at all the sort of thing that attracts me but I am now curious and not just because of MT. So I should perhaps try Friday rush, wear my contact lenses (glasses not good in case of fainting) and hope for the best? |
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Feb 26, 2016 13:43:25 GMT
I'll tell you, peggs, I was in the front row which, strangely, is the best place to be if the action onstage threatens to overwhelm you - because that close you can see some of the artifice, the pulled punches and kicks, the fact that the torturers are not doing what they seem to be doing. Further back it would all be much more real. Plus, Michelle Terry is onstage for virtually the whole play and you can keep your eyes on her when things get rough elsewhere. My takeaway impression was not so much of individual acts, as outrageous as some are, but of the utter bleakness of the play's vision of the world - and of the courage and commitment of the actors to unwrapping it, level by level. Usually this is not at all the sort of thing that attracts me but I am now curious and not just because of MT. So I should perhaps try Friday rush, wear my contact lenses (glasses not good in case of fainting) and hope for the best? Yes, go. I am a person that does not even watch violent movies but I found the production of Cleansed interesting, probably because I am still trying to make sense of what Sarah Kane was trying to say. Violence is instrumental to the exploration of the limits of love. There is a Kate Mitchell's talk about the play on Wednesday that should be interesting, just to hear what her idea of the play is and what the audience will have to say instead. |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 26, 2016 16:14:22 GMT
There is a Kate Mitchell's talk about the play on Wednesday that should be interesting, just to hear what her idea of the play is and what the audience will have to say instead. Oh please do report back what she says, I'd love to hear it. For me, Katie Mitchell misses the point of this play, focusing on the torture porn aspects to exclusion of the love aspects. I don't think Katie Mitchell remotely respects the mindset of Sarah Kane, and prefers to distance herself from what she probably perceives as Kane's perversity. Kane was a massive fan of Joy Division, and I'm betting that the title of their song "Love will tear us apart" was spinning round her mind when she wrote this. Pain is the body of the play, love is it's soul. Pain is merely Kane's tool to test the power of love. Spoilers follow. . . This play is like "Shakespeare in Love," but with Josef Mengele, aka Tinker, substituted for Shakespeare: "Mengele in Love" if you will. In Kane's perception, Tinker's experiments are designed to measure love's limits, to dissect it's true nature, even while he himself succombs to love's overwhelming power. Kane's perversity is that we are NOT supposed to shut Tinker himself out, to exile him from our consciousness, but instead to relate to his love problems just as we relate to the love problems of his patients. In Kane's play, Tinker finds love of sorts, and Kane wants us to deal with that. Mitchell is repulsed by Kane's conclusion, so (BIG SPOILER). . . she has Tinker shoot his love object and himself as well (offstage, by implication). For Mitchell, Tinker is beyond the pale, irredeemable is any way whatsoever. Mitchell works hard to exile all aspects of Tinker's humanity. She glosses over the parts where Tinker seeks consent for what he is doing, and the parts where Tinker is revealed to be a mere agent of an even more judgemental power, that seeks to "cure" incestuous and homosexual and obsessional longing. When Tinker injects Graham's eye with heroin at the beginning, it is because Graham wants that, begs for it, and Tinker gives in to his request, but in Mitchell's presentation, Tinker's charm and restraint are absent, only the torturer remains. Because Mitchell is so keen to demonise Tinker, who in fact is a stand-in for Kane herself, she surrounds him with faceless nazi-style monster minions, and she forbids him a relatable demeanour. More damning, she fails to bring out the loves that are to be tested by violence, leaving only brutality on stage. This is a mistake even torture-porn makers typically avoid. For example, in Eli Roth's "Hostel" films, the humanity and concerns of characters are established first, before the torture starts. A superior torture porn series, like the "Saw" films, which have a guiding morality, gets a LOT closer to Sarah Kane's mindset than Mitchell does. In those films, Jigsaw is Tinker, and like Tinker, Jigsaw sets out to test the limits of people's humanity. He hopes to make these suicidal and careless, soulless husks of people FIND their humanity, as a life without a soul is worse than death for Jigsaw. If they don't, they die. Like Jigsaw, Tinker is Kane's agent for finding the love in her characters, even the humanity in Tinker himself. Mitchell sees only butchery. Mitchell elides over when characters actually begin their process with Tinker. Michelle Terry's Grace, whose incestuous longing for her brother is to be tested by Tinker, is denied her proper introduction, six months after the opening scene. Further, Tinker is denied his chance to refuse to "treat" her, and she is then denied the chance to beg for the treatment that will bring her closer to her dead love object, her own brother, to slowly become him. Instead, Grace is introduced by Mitchell as a ghostly presence right from the start, as a kind of mournful judge of Tinker's behaviour. It makes no sense, unless the only point is to look at torture and sigh "oh the humanity!" Michelle Terry is brave and bold and brilliant in this, but her character, Grace, is challenged by Mitchell only to suffer. Surely, Kane would have preferred to have Grace's incestuous longing for her brother to be more prominent, for her own agency in Tinker's asylum to be more of the focus, a test of her love, an attempt to reunite. Grace's achievement in Kane's "Cleansed" is that she succeeds where Tinker fails. Love exists, despite Tinker's attempts to prove the opposite. In Mitchell's "Cleansed," there is only torture, misery and degradation. Personally, I don't think that presenting the body of Kane's "Cleansed," absent it's soul, is a good way to introduce Kane to the mass audience of the National Theatre. The woman behind me was fuming: "what a lot of crap. If I was an actor, I'd have refused to be in it. The director needs to be thrown into a mental home." Maybe, I thought, but not the writer. 2 stars, for what remains of Kane's vision. |
|
|
|
Post by DebbieDoesDouglas(Hodge) on Feb 26, 2016 16:23:38 GMT
I think you may be getting opinion and fact mixed up
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Feb 26, 2016 17:33:45 GMT
Steve, thanks for the enlightenment - I had no idea how much Katie Mitchell had intervened in this. On the other hand, without really understanding what was going on, I did respond to the dark power of the play. A case, I suppose, of ignorance is bliss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 19:06:27 GMT
Bugger, I'm not going to see this for weeks and I want to posit a different interpretation of the play to Steve's very eloquent analysis (although one which I don't entirely share). But I'm not going to see it yet. So I can't. And it's sold out pretty much until then. Suffice to say that I think Kane can always be interpreted in many different ways, so I'll let Andrew Haydon have a stab at how and why. "The overall effect of the piece is curiously like watching a piece of dance-theatre. It’s as if Kane was really creating a kind of Pina Bausch-like ballet about torture and love, and it’s only in production that this aspect of the whole can be realised. I should say, I don’t believe for a moment that this is an inevitable consequence of someone choosing to put this play on stage. While appearing to be wholly faithful and a very “pure” version of the script, this Cleansed is brimming with tonal choices and interpretations." postcardsgods.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/cleansed-national-theatre-london.html |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 27, 2016 10:37:15 GMT
Debbie, yes, it's just my opinion. Of course, there are some facts, such as a complete switcheroo on the ending, and an altered beginning. Mallardo, I agree. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I'm sure I'd have enjoyed the Nahum Tate Happy Ending King Lear a lot more than the actual King Lear the first time I saw the play. Now it would annoy me lol. Cardinal Pirelli, I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I know you are invested in the play and playwright, and will have interesting things to say. I don't think it is a "pure" version though, to write a new ending to this play. It seems like Nahum Tate, a less-ambiguous less-interesting resolution which refuses to engage with the meat and heart of the play, by imposing pre-existing expectations and prejudices upon the material. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 11:27:52 GMT
It is interesting how the news has had a reaction to ticket sales! Last week I went onto the website to see the ticket availability, almost all the performances had some left over. Now, every single show on the website is sold out!
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Mar 3, 2016 11:17:50 GMT
Was there anyone at the platform with Katie Mitchell on “Cleansed” yesterday?
SPOILERS NOW:
I thought it was very interesting: she was perfectly affable and open to questions and it was great to hear how she approached the text and the challenges that it implies. The decision to have a single set was dictated by practical considerations and she spoke of surrealism for framing the story (which in her words refused to be cohered into a single narrative) as Grace’s dream. Having Grace on stage all the time also helped to reinforce the feminist point of view: usually it is men who act violence. She said that nobody expected the fainting and she was sorry about that because it was never anyone’s intention to cause such reactions; her team (she stressed that the shaping of the show is a collective procedure and she laughed at her usual labelling as an “auteur” because of that) mostly feared laughter. The explicit and fairly realistic depiction of violence was done to highlight by contrast the moments of tenderness (love-making, someone undressing and standing there in full vulnerability). Katie Mitchell spoke several times of the beauty and tenderness of the play and told the audience that she imagines scenes visually and tries to build them based on painting rules like the golden section (ah, those years of art history at school finally paid off for me). The sound was developed in parallel to the acting and it was an essential element to create the whole piece. In order to avoid that the actors were ‘lost’ in the darkness of the violence on stage, every passage was choreographed and precisely planned so that the mechanical succession of movements reduced the understandably shocking experience of being either perpetrator or victim. She also said that they tried to find solutions for all the stage directions given by Sarah Kane but the directions about rats were something they could not manage to follow: in another production in Germany the director used real rats but they were too shy and had no interest in running away with someone’s fake foot and when Katie Mitchell and her team opted for socks with eyes, the effect was just comic and detracted from the mood of the play. There was also a question about why violence on stage make people faint whereas violence that we see each day on TV or the web leaves us mostly cold. Katie Mitchell has about 10-12 new shows to prepare from now to 2019 and she said that she is happy in her work spread all over Europe. I know that she is considered a very polarizing and unapproachable director but after she nearly hugged me when I went to see “Cleansed”, I am definitely on the side of those who like her work. I found very interesting to understand how her productions are created and how important is for her to make sure that every detail fits with the general approach to a text. Now I am looking forward to hear her and Robert Icke talk about how they approached Chekhov at the Almeida on the 17th March.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Mar 3, 2016 13:39:33 GMT
Interesting.
For me the fainting think is often linked to feeling trapped, being in an environment where you can't easily leave without causing a disturbance etc. So violence in films can have the same effect as it's a similar physical set up. TV can cause the faint effect but usually I can turn off/press pause/leave room etc. more easily. I think perhaps it's a control thing in my head as much as anything.
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Mar 3, 2016 15:55:18 GMT
Interesting. For me the fainting think is often linked to feeling trapped, being in an environment where you can't easily leave without causing a disturbance etc. So violence in films can have the same effect as it's a similar physical set up. TV can cause the faint effect but usually I can turn off/press pause/leave room etc. more easily. I think perhaps it's a control thing in my head as much as anything. The idea that came out from the platform was that in theatre you are physically present while violence is taking place, whereas in TV, cinema or the web there is always the screen that allows you to distance yourself. |
|
)
