|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 20:20:50 GMT
Massive pile of sh*t
Some of the worst acting I have seen in a good while
A bastardised “version”
From the no one Elinor Cook
And the forced change of setting is perverse
Doesn’t bode well for Young Vic
Have always considered KKA a second rate playwright
And he’s even worse as a director
If you saw this play with Natasha Redgrave or
Joely Richardson
This is a poor imitation of the real thing
I doubt either the people adapting
or directing
Had even been to the theatre then
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Oct 13, 2017 20:28:44 GMT
I remember the truly glorious, haunting and rather epic production at the Royal Exchange with Vanessa Redgrave - that was from the golden age of the theatre, and I know tastes and styles have changed, but heck that theatre is now producing very rough and rawly stark productions. I guess economics also play a part. I know it shouldn't all be about lush production values, but it should be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 20:48:17 GMT
I remember the truly glorious, haunting and rather epic production at the Royal Exchange with Vanessa Redgrave - that was from the golden age of the theatre, and I know tastes and styles have changed, but heck that theatre is now producing very rough and rawly stark productions. I guess economics also play a part. I know it shouldn't all be about lush production values, but it should be interesting. WELL My dear sister I haven’t mentioned the set yet It’s beyond laughable Wood floor And a truly pathetic fishtank in the corner Which people paddle in It’s utterly pathetic and there is the most awful attempt at creating rocks with moss on them (looks like 3 year old painted it) And some hysterical plastic flowers Which are supposed to represent lush paradise tropics Atmosphere created by changing lighting from blue to amber and back again Nikki Bird is a terrible actress No way can she hold a lead role Squeaky voice and over eager She’s hardly star material for such a major role Perhaps the awful awful set Could be excused If the play wasn’t cast with Z listers |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 12:39:00 GMT
Sounds like a good calling card for the Young Vic - An opportunity taken to shed the unappreciative audience elements before you start.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Oct 14, 2017 16:05:38 GMT
As I remember the Royal Exchange's stranger was first played by Michael Byrne (with amazing eyes) and then when it transferred to the Roundhouse, Terence stamp. Oh that you could have seen that version, Parsley.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 16:14:09 GMT
Anyone else tempted to see this now after reading parsley's rave review? Sounds like a smash!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 14, 2017 16:41:28 GMT
Anyone else tempted to see this now after reading parsley's rave review? Sounds like a smash! Yeah I'm seeing it, though I also saw the brilliant Trevor Nunn/Natasha Richardson version at the Almeida so I'm sure to be disappointed. |
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Oct 16, 2017 11:15:26 GMT
How is the actor playing the teacher? I saw a quite average production of the play in Stockholm in Swedish last month, but the actor playing the teacher was absolutely outstanding! For me one of the less interesting plays by Ibsen if not done properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Oct 16, 2017 15:41:06 GMT
Going this week... At least it’s short!
|
|
1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 16, 2017 15:50:35 GMT
What's the running time?
|
|
1,254 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Oct 16, 2017 15:51:29 GMT
Ahh yes it says 100 mins on the website
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Oct 16, 2017 17:32:53 GMT
Ibsen short? What have they done to the play?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 17:42:49 GMT
Set it inland. Turned the lady into a bloke. And asked the remaining cast to deliver their lines in nineteenth century Norwegian.
They're not coping too well. Hence the running time.
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by RedRose on Oct 17, 2017 8:21:05 GMT
The play is rather short. The version I saw is 105 minutes without interval.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 8:18:05 GMT
I saw this last night and although I found the production boring and lopsided, you can tell that Ibsen's play is far, far better than this: my first encounter with The Lady from the Sea by the way.
The actress playing the lead role was, in my opinion, unconvincing, and after reading up on the original version, I'm at odds to find anything positive to say about staging it in a Caribbean setting. I'm not sure it says or adds anything.
Off on a tangent, the Donmar seriously needs to reconsider it's tickets for youths system. The entire upper circle had been given away to schools and the way the children were interacting with the play was akin to how they would interact with a soap opera when watching it from their sofa. Incredibly immature and the teachers didn't look embarrassed by their behaviour either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 22:03:01 GMT
I am drawn to Ibsen’s play now, so the production achieved something. It is a mixed bag, I think. I thought two actors stood out: the woman playing Bolette and the man who plays TheStranger. The production seemed under rehearsed because the actors seemed somewhat ill at ease. I wondered why you would set it in the Caribbean during the 50s when nationalism and the drive for independence were fermenting, but make no mention of it apart from her momentarily reverting to patois - I suppose to indicate that she has lost herself through colonisation. At one point I thought of a TV series I never watch (except once when a friend was in it) Death in Paradise. BUT the story exerts this incredible power, which is why I want to read/see Ibsen’s incredible play.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 4, 2017 22:50:35 GMT
The one word which comes to minf after watching this is "dishonest". This is not Ibsen's "The Lady From The Sea". It is a play whose story may have been inspired by that play but to sell it as being by Ibsen is simply wrong.
What has been done here is not, as happens often with for example Shakespeare, give it a change of era or setting or costume and try and fit the text into the interpretation. Basically when Ibsen's text doesn't suit her, Ms Cook simply writes her own. Still keeps his name on the posters though as Ibsen still puts rather more bums on seat than Cook which makes it very useful for her but Ibsen must be turning in his grave.
They should do the Donmar for misrepresentation. Any discussion of the acting or the production is, frankly, irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2017 23:02:49 GMT
The one word which comes to minf after watching this is "dishonest". This is not Ibsen's "The Lady From The Sea". It is a play whose story may have been inspired by that play but to sell it as being by Ibsen is simply wrong. What has been done here is not, as happens often with for example Shakespeare, give it a change of era or setting or costume and try and fit the text into the interpretation. Basically when Ibsen's text doesn't suit her, Ms Cook simply writes her own. Still keeps his name on the posters though as Ibsen still puts rather more bums on seat than Cook which makes it very useful for her but Ibsen must be turning in his grave. They should do the Donmar for misrepresentation. Any discussion of the acting or the production is, frankly, irrelevant. An interesting post. I haven’t seen this production and most of the comments on here haven’t inspired me to book. But perhaps this is the way we’re going with new productions of some of the classics. I can’t remember much about the Old Vic Hedda Gabler five years or so ago, other than it wasn’t quite the version I knew... Bits added, bits taken out, bits changed... but not the text I remembered reading or the play I thought I was going to see. I remember feeling a bit cheated. I was disappointed with it although the cast was impressive and nothing had been spared with regards to the production. |
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 4, 2017 23:18:24 GMT
Directors need to get playwrights to write the plays they want to direct if they do not already exist. Nothing against new writing, I enjoy and support it where I can, but this is simply disgusting. I do not need a mediator between Ibsen and modern life and if I do maybe it's because we don't need Ibsen.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 4, 2017 23:25:16 GMT
I agree that this does look like misrepresentation.
Second case I am aware of this year - with the new theatre in Chester opening up with their production of The Beggar's Opera - which did away with John Gay's script and the original songs. In no way was it The Beggar's Opera as anyone who has seen one of the many versions that have been performed over the years would recognise.
However it seems that the industry is happy to condone this sort of behaviour rather than challenging it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2017 23:34:46 GMT
Zzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 9:54:22 GMT
Looks like Chris is bored...  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 10:13:14 GMT
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 5, 2017 10:16:32 GMT
This was not a translation it was someone else's re-invention. Ibsen would have hated it. Despite his forward-thinking plays, for their time, he was an extremely conservative person and very jealous of his art.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 11:47:52 GMT
Ibsen is far too preachy most of the time for me, the only times I’ve been able to stomach his plays are in productions from European directors who don’t feel hamstrung by the plays and translate them fully (as in not just language but setting, staging etc). As for what a playwright thinks, it’s in their best interests to let theatre take them where theatre is, it’s an ever evolving medium that even older playwrights will find difficult to square with the one they knew when they started. The reason that Shakespeare, Chekhov etc. survive is because of their adaptability into forms they would never have imagined, if Ibsen can’t do that, then he will go the way of many forgotten playwights but the work of those such as Ostermeier/Borchmeyer (Enemy of the People) and Van Hove/Herzberg (Hedda Gabler) made a decent case for his continued importance.
|
|
