Macbeth ( NT 2018)

[bordeaux]

Mar 5, 2018 18:52:57 GMT @elanor said:

Mar 5, 2018 17:33:40 GMT @theatremonkey said:

I was just going to say that...

... I will never forget learning World War 2 history from a 40 year old text book printed on "War Economy" paper (the official stamp was on the front page) in 1947 either...

I um... acquired? my school copy of French For Today because it was so awesomely out of date. Monsiour Bertillon travaille. Madame Bertillon s'occupe des enfants. Le chien joue dans le jardin.

Today it would presumably be:  Madame Bertillon travaille.  Monsieur Bertillon joue dans le jardin.  Le chien s'occupe des enfants.

[lynette]

Do kids learn French these days?

[oxfordsimon]

Je ne sais pas

[Deleted]

Mar 6, 2018 16:52:23 GMT lynette said:

Do kids learn French these days?

Non.

[oxfordsimon]

Mar 6, 2018 17:37:23 GMT @ryan said:

Mar 6, 2018 16:52:23 GMT lynette said:

Do kids learn French these days?

Non.

Shouldn't that be 'le nope'?

[Deleted]

Mar 6, 2018 17:38:18 GMT oxfordsimon said:

Mar 6, 2018 17:37:23 GMT @ryan said:

Non.

Shouldn't that be 'le nope'?

[bordeaux]

Mar 6, 2018 16:52:23 GMT lynette said:

Do kids learn French these days?

No - at least not if the mock A level papers I've just marked are anything to go by...

[lynette]

Sorry about this digression. Back to Macbeth. I saw a production of Macbeth in German once. I’ve mentioned it before because it was an informative experience. Macbeth practised stabbing on a rubber chicken ( meant to be a real chicken I think ) and the witches hung from the ceiling which I think Rufus has copied from previous comments here. Perhaps he saw the German version too.

[Jan]

Mar 6, 2018 20:33:16 GMT lynette said:

Sorry about this digression. Back to Macbeth. I saw a production of Macbeth in German once. I’ve mentioned it before because it was an informative experience. Macbeth practised stabbing on a rubber chicken ( meant to be a real chicken I think ) and the witches hung from the ceiling which I think Rufus has copied from previous comments here. Perhaps he saw the German version too.

In the Doran/Sher one during rehearsals he had the theatre (Swan) in total darkness for the witches' first appearance so the audience could see nothing, and he had their voices broadcast through tiny speakers which were able to move on wires strung out over the heads of the audience, so it seemed like at the start of the scene the witches were in the middle of the stage but then at the end they flew out directly overhead of the audience. But he cut this out of the actual production because it was "too scary". Says something about Doran. 

[bacon]

To refine an earlier poster's assessment of the theme, I *think* they were going for 'Mad Max...goes to Glastonbury!' - which sounds bad enough - but what they actually delivered was more 'Mild Max and friends have a feeble rave near a large ramp outside a bin-bag factory'. Rory Kinnear's usual excellence is fatally undermined here by an ugly, cheap-looking, vomit-flecked mess of a production. Some awful staging - especially the feast scene, which was quite restricted from where I was sat. (How do you have a restricted view in the Olivier?) At the risk of echoing another prominent board member, Norris really does seem to have lost it as a director - his productions used to be so stylish, didn't they? (The ones I've seen certainly were). Oh, and Anne-Marie Duff is a forgettable Lady M - her run of fulsome duds trundles wearily on. There's some really wretched support lurking in there too.

[alexandra]

"his productions used to be so stylish, didn't they?"

Yes. Peribanez and Afore Night Come at the Young Vic, and Festen at the Almeida, were tremendous.

[tonyloco]

Call me old-fashioned, but how about the equivalent of a concert version of 'Macbeth' where the actors wear simple but sensibly appropriate costumes and act the text but without any scenic or production distractions, apart from perhaps some subtle lighting. Has this been done recently? Certainly the productions that I have seen in recent years have always gone for over-kill in changes to the setting and such. I would prefer to be given a straight well-acted presentation of what Shakespeare wrote – it's powerful enough as it stands – and do the re-imagining in my own head!

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2018 11:50:11 GMT tonyloco said:

Call me old-fashioned, but how about the equivalent of a concert version of 'Macbeth' where the actors wear simple but sensibly appropriate costumes and act the text but without any scenic or production distractions, apart from perhaps some subtle lighting. Has this been done recently? Certainly the productions that I have seen in recent years have always gone for over-kill in changes to the setting and such. I would prefer to be given a straight well-acted presentation of what Shakespeare wrote – it's powerful enough as it stands – and do the re-imagining in my own head!

The Doran/Sher version was pretty much like that, all shades of black and murk. Others seemed to like it more than me, I thought it was pretty average and didn't seem to have anything useful to say.

An excellent re-imagining was the Out of Joint African set version, with suggestions of Idi Amin and his links to Scotland, the Goold/Stewart one was also well done.

[Deleted]

Running time

Magically reduced

From 2h 55

To 2h 30 includes interval

Am going to see the whole
Thing tonight

😒

[tonyloco]

Mar 7, 2018 12:34:49 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

An excellent re-imagining was the Out of Joint African set version, with suggestions of Idi Amin and his links to Scotland, the Goold/Stewart one was also well done.

Thanks, Cardinal Pirelli, but I really do not want a re-imagining. Here is what I wrote about the Patrick Stewart version:

"I have to say however that Patrick Stewart gave a formidable performance, with lots of big scale ’acting’ that was both realistic and theatrical, and he was very successful with the set pieces. But I thought that the play was over-produced, with too many sound effects and things like electronic echo on the voices, some of which were obviously amplified beyond what should have been necessary. And of course that damned service lift was particularly irritating: ‘Remember to close both doors securely before beginning your journey’, especially during a battle scene! But worse than the over-production was the fact that it was over-directed, with most of the cast hectoring and shouting even when the dramatic situations didn’t need such histrionics. For me, the lowest point in this respect was the completely over-the-top porter scene, which worked perfectly in the Open Air Theatre production in Regent’s Park earlier in the year when it was played in a straightforward way (and got a lot of laughs) but last night just seemed ludicrously affected and did not work as the comic relief after the murder of Duncan that Shakespeare obviously meant it to provide. And although it was a clever idea to present the witches as three nurses, this meant that a lot of what Shakespeare actually wrote had to be glossed over, so for example the brewing of the potion and the recital of the ingredients that went into the cauldron (alas, no cauldron and no brew last night) was done as a rap in which the words were all but unintelligible. And bringing three dead bodies in bodybags to life didn’t quite seem to be what Shakespeare had in mind for the apparition scene!"

Sorry that this is getting away from the current NT production, but I am just suggesting that I would like to see a well-acted but straightforward version of the basic play.

[crowblack]

Mar 6, 2018 11:30:53 GMT bordeaux said:

I um... acquired? my school copy of French For Today because it was so awesomely out of date.

I wish I'd nicked my A la Page - it had illustrations by Sempe, who I love. We must have had to buy some books - primary texts for O and A level English and Drama, certainly, because mine are heavily embellished (Jane Austen covers got zombiefied with black biro long before that movie - Regency ladies with gaping jaws and gore-spattered muslin).

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2018 11:50:11 GMT tonyloco said:

Call me old-fashioned, but how about the equivalent of a concert version of 'Macbeth' where the actors wear simple but sensibly appropriate costumes and act the text but without any scenic or production distractions, apart from perhaps some subtle lighting. Has this been done recently? Certainly the productions that I have seen in recent years have always gone for over-kill in changes to the setting and such. I would prefer to be given a straight well-acted presentation of what Shakespeare wrote – it's powerful enough as it stands – and do the re-imagining in my own head!

I think that would be called a reading not a theatre production! All productions involve making choices about what you think the play is saying, what the characters are, want, feel, mean, etc, and then how you want to present it as a coherent narrative. For eg, you say 'just some subtle lighting' - but what lighting? What mood are you trying to convey? Because it's hard to do something that won't have any meaning or effect. There's no such thing as just presenting the play.

[nash16]

Mar 7, 2018 12:54:27 GMT @parsley said:

Running time

Magically reduced

From 2h 55

To 2h 30 includes interval

Am going to see the whole
Thing tonight

😒

Reduced just in time for Press Night.

Please let us know the actual running time once you've seen it. The National have a tendency to stating imaginary running times for their less great (and long) productions to lure us in!

[bob2010]

Press Reviews are out tomorrow morning

[nash16]

Mar 7, 2018 13:55:05 GMT bob2010 said:

Press Reviews are out tomorrow morning

#prayforrufus
#prayforthekidswhollhavetowatchthiswhenittours

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2018 13:00:59 GMT tonyloco said:

Mar 7, 2018 12:34:49 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

An excellent re-imagining was the Out of Joint African set version, with suggestions of Idi Amin and his links to Scotland, the Goold/Stewart one was also well done.

Thanks, Cardinal Pirelli, but I really do not want a re-imagining. Here is what I wrote about the Patrick Stewart version:

"I have to say however that Patrick Stewart gave a formidable performance, with lots of big scale ’acting’ that was both realistic and theatrical, and he was very successful with the set pieces. But I thought that the play was over-produced, with too many sound effects and things like electronic echo on the voices, some of which were obviously amplified beyond what should have been necessary. And of course that damned service lift was particularly irritating: ‘Remember to close both doors securely before beginning your journey’, especially during a battle scene! But worse than the over-production was the fact that it was over-directed, with most of the cast hectoring and shouting even when the dramatic situations didn’t need such histrionics. For me, the lowest point in this respect was the completely over-the-top porter scene, which worked perfectly in the Open Air Theatre production in Regent’s Park earlier in the year when it was played in a straightforward way (and got a lot of laughs) but last night just seemed ludicrously affected and did not work as the comic relief after the murder of Duncan that Shakespeare obviously meant it to provide. And although it was a clever idea to present the witches as three nurses, this meant that a lot of what Shakespeare actually wrote had to be glossed over, so for example the brewing of the potion and the recital of the ingredients that went into the cauldron (alas, no cauldron and no brew last night) was done as a rap in which the words were all but unintelligible. And bringing three dead bodies in bodybags to life didn’t quite seem to be what Shakespeare had in mind for the apparition scene!"

Sorry that this is getting away from the current NT production, but I am just suggesting that I would like to see a well-acted but straightforward version of the basic play.

I'm not sure what you man by straightforward, Tony. The Goold one's performances were probably more akin to those that Shakespeare's audience would have expected with a very heightened sense of reality. The African one I mentioned had very low key conversational performances as a contrast. I imagine the latter is what most audiences would think of as straightforward, given our love affair with realism, but that's a style that is very much an imposed contemporary one.

Or is just 'overdesign' and you would have preferred the basic black, grey and white Anthony Sher one?

[peggs]

Mar 7, 2018 12:54:27 GMT @parsley said:

Running time

Magically reduced

From 2h 55

To 2h 30 includes interval

Am going to see the whole
Thing ton9ight

😒

Most interested to hear what you think, is it wrong to hope you don't like it as car crash as this sounds we could hit whole new levels of @parsley scorn.

[tonyloco]

Mar 7, 2018 14:57:41 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

I'm not sure what you man by straightforward, Tony. The Goold one's performances were probably more akin to those that Shakespeare's audience would have expected with a very heightened sense of reality. The African one I mentioned had very low key conversational performances as a contrast. I imagine the latter is what most audiences would think of as straightforward, given our love affair with realism, but that's a style that is very much an imposed contemporary one.

Or is just 'overdesign' and you would have preferred the basic black, grey and white Anthony Sher one?

I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly. I studied 'Macbeth' at school with a brilliant English teacher and I suppose by 'straightforward' I just want to see the play with good actors who can bring out all the richness, power and drama that is in the text and presented in the period in which it is originally set without any directorial changes. The play opens with three witches on a deserted heath with thunder and lightning, which to Shakespeare's audience would have meant three ugly old women outdoors in a storm, not three smartly dressed nurses in an operating theatre in an abandoned hospital or anything other than three ugly old women out in a storm...and so on.

But I also understand that in this day and age every new production of this play (and every other Shakespeare play) has to have some new twist or re-imagining so as not to be considered old hat. It's just the same at the opera, but let's not go there!

[tonyloco]

Mar 7, 2018 13:37:20 GMT @abby said:

I think that would be called a reading not a theatre production! All productions involve making choices about what you think the play is saying, what the characters are, want, feel, mean, etc, and then how you want to present it as a coherent narrative. For eg, you say 'just some subtle lighting' - but what lighting? What mood are you trying to convey? Because it's hard to do something that won't have any meaning or effect. There's no such thing as just presenting the play.

But what about all the stage directions that appear in the early versions of the text as first published that are invariably ignored or changed in 'reimagined' productions? Can we not have the play staged in a way that presents or at least represents them? As I said in an earlier post:

I just want to see the play with good actors who can bring out all the richness, power and drama that is in the text and presented in the period in which it is originally set without any directorial changes. The play opens with three witches on a deserted heath with thunder and lightning, which to Shakespeare's audience would have meant three ugly old women outdoors in a storm, not three smartly dressed nurses in an operating theatre in an abandoned hospital or anything other than three ugly old women out in a storm...and so on. Would such a production not be possible? It might actually be billed as 'Shakespeare's Macbeth'!

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2018 19:06:35 GMT tonyloco said:

Mar 7, 2018 14:57:41 GMT @cardinalpirelli said:

I'm not sure what you man by straightforward, Tony. The Goold one's performances were probably more akin to those that Shakespeare's audience would have expected with a very heightened sense of reality. The African one I mentioned had very low key conversational performances as a contrast. I imagine the latter is what most audiences would think of as straightforward, given our love affair with realism, but that's a style that is very much an imposed contemporary one.

Or is just 'overdesign' and you would have preferred the basic black, grey and white Anthony Sher one?

I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly. I studied 'Macbeth' at school with a brilliant English teacher and I suppose by 'straightforward' I just want to see the play with good actors who can bring out all the richness, power and drama that is in the text and presented in the period in which it is originally set without any directorial changes. The play opens with three witches on a deserted heath with thunder and lightning, which to Shakespeare's audience would have meant three ugly old women outdoors in a storm, not three smartly dressed nurses in an operating theatre in an abandoned hospital or anything other than three ugly old women out in a storm...and so on.

But I also understand that in this day and age every new production of this play (and every other Shakespeare play) has to have some new twist or re-imagining so as not to be considered old hat. It's just the same at the opera, but let's not go there!

Straightforward isn’t as straightforward as that! Firstly the lines you quote are not necessarily original, they are plausibly ones added later by Thomas Middleton (scholars find that there’s even better evidence for his interpolating the Hecate scene). What we have is likely a version that was edited later from Shakespeare’s original. What are witches anyway? Weird Sisters gives us something but to give the same effect as in Shakespeare’s day we have to find a workable image of fear, we don’t believe the way they did so to us they are not as they should be. Then there is the idea of what period it should be in, the original performance would have used Elizabethan costumes but the characters used are from earlier than that so historical is out of the window (some might imagine tartan kilts but they are completely inappropriate and a more modern addition).

Then the text - this is just a starting point, it isn’t really the story of a historical Macbeth, it is a fiction that is as much to do with tickling the King’s Scottish fancy (with added supernatural spice given his fascination with witchcraft). It’s the same with most of Shakespeare’s plays, the history isn’t the point. Given that then there is no real vanilla version of the play that exists without interpretations and additions and that Shakespeare expected contemporaneity rather than something from the past, the most Shakesperean versions we have is quite likely to be something akin to Goold’s.