1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 9, 2018 16:42:28 GMT
No actual remarks about the production? Am curious to hear, given how vivid my memories are of the two NY productions (including Lyndsey Turner's with Rebecca Hall), not to mention Fiona Shaw almost being eaten alive by the design for the play when Daldry did it at the Nash. Some remarks: The production isn't great. Abrahami has chosen to take us, with each named scene, across the decades from the 1920's, when Treadwell wrote it, through to the present day, but this seems to do little for the play itself, other than clang the audience over the head in a sort of "this is relevant to today" kind of way. I'm not sure if the story of "young woman" being choosing to get married and then having an affair because she's unhappy is desperately new or relevant to today though? Maybe female viewers would find more to the play than we did though. It is a woman "stuck" in her marriage and position in society. Which I, of course, would empathise with, but the young woman chooses this, or seems to, so the actual level of sympathy towards her is actually quite low. It's a strange beast because of this. Alongside the "expressionist" writing, which distances us maybe? Or is it the continual blasts of blinding light Miriam Buether inflicts on us (for reasons neither of us could actually fathom?). It genuinely becomes painful each time, and then sort of funny. The woman next to me giggled into her husbands armipit every time we had another blinding session. Take the strongest sunglasses you can find. The design seems at odds with the production, which in turn seems at odds with the play. It just all felt too distant and non involving. We became passive as an audience. Watching rather than feeling. There were two big student groups in who screamed their heads off at the end, a bit like at Julie. But we weren't quite sure which elements of the production they were screaming in appreciation for? The acting is fine. Berrington looks right but speaks all her lines monotone and robot like. I'm sure she's been directed this way, (in keeping with the style of the original maybe?) but it screams out for a more personal, emotional, empathetic performance, which could be surrounded by the Westworld robots of the other characters. I wanted Denise Gough, or similar, looking around her in desperate shock as her life gets consumed. Berrington's young woman is all too neat. Even the head shaving scene is refined. A few hairs being taken from her wig all too easily. I think Buether's set could have been better put to use in a better production. One that drives the action forward in a nightmarish whirlwind descent into hell. The play seems to read this way. This production doesn't do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 17:37:57 GMT
Expressionism in its pure form, as in ths play, doesn’t bother with driving ‘the action forward’, it’s deliberately episodic and disrupts the audience’s desire for narrative clairity and the cause and effect of realism. The story and characterisation are very disjointed but they are absolutely meant to be, as though the main character sees her life in blinding flashes of moments. The character isn’t one to empathise with either, she is contradictory, makes bad mistakes but, yet, challenges an audience to think ‘fine, but nobody deserves that’.
Given mentions of both Humans and Westworld already (both great shows in my opinion), maybe it should be noted that all characters in this are human!
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 9, 2018 20:39:47 GMT
Expressionism in its pure form, as in ths play, doesn’t bother with driving ‘the action forward’, it’s deliberately episodic and disrupts the audience’s desire for narrative clairity and the cause and effect of realism. The story and characterisation are very disjointed but they are absolutely meant to be, as though the main character sees her life in blinding flashes of moments. The character isn’t one to empathise with either, she is contradictory, makes bad mistakes but, yet, challenges an audience to think ‘fine, but nobody deserves that’. Given mentions of both Humans and Westworld already (both great shows in my opinion), maybe it should be noted that all characters in this are human! Yep, but the problem with this production is you don't even think that at the end: "but nobody deserves that’. " You just think "oh, that's happened to her"... |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 9, 2018 20:45:05 GMT
"as though the main character sees her life in blinding flashes of moments"
Not sure about this idea you've mooted though, if you're trying to justify Buether's ACTUAL blinding of the audience.
It did become hilarious watching the audience cower from it and laugh at each other as they did so.
I think it bonded us more than the story did! 😂 😎
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 21:47:51 GMT
"as though the main character sees her life in blinding flashes of moments" Not sure about this idea you've mooted though, if you're trying to justify Buether's ACTUAL blinding of the audience. It did become hilarious watching the audience cower from it and laugh at each other as they did so. I think it bonded us more than the story did! 😂 😎 No, it’s just the way the structure comes across to me. As though we are seeing her life in shards of lucidity. |
|
74 posts
|
Post by ruperto on Jun 9, 2018 21:50:54 GMT
Just back from this. Like nash16, I was underwhelmed.
I liked some of the staging, and it’s got an impressive sound design. And I can see that it’s a historically important play, and also why they have chosen to revive it now. But I’m not sure that it’s a particularly good play...
Emily Berrington was ok, but played it all rather one-note - though maybe that’s how it’s written, or how she was directed?
I didn’t have a problem with the blinding lights. And anyone intrigued about the warnings on the Almeida website will be relieved/disappointed to hear that there’s nothing to frighten the horses here - the nudity mentioned seemed to amount to a bit of bare back (though as some on here will recall, the nudity ‘warning’ was definitely justified when Berrington appeared in Children’s Children at the Almeida a few years back), while the intriguing latex warning presumably related to when the lead character put on a pair of marigolds at one point. Plus I think maybe one character had a fag.
Started at 7.30, finished at 8.53, so a good one for those who like their early nights...
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 9, 2018 22:09:48 GMT
It opens with this amazing image of the main character on a crowded subway - framed by the set so you just see a slice of the group of commuters - so beautifully lit - it looked like a Renaissance painting.
The next is an outstanding scene in a busy office, with rapid dialogue (Kirsty Rider who plays the telephonist is superb - lightning quick changes, comic, surprising) with the chorus of other stenographers/workers reflected in the high mirrors positioned diagonally above the stage.
It's pretty much downhill from there, with the exception of a good scene between Berrington and Dwane Walcott.
I'd been excited to see this as I'd heard about it for years and thought of it as one of those odd but compelling 1920s plays or films that explored what it was to be human rather than a machine. like Elmer Rice's The Adding Machine (there are a number of plot similarities with this) or Fritz Lang's Metropolis. I'd also heard it described as an early feminist play. I suppose there is an argument that the main character feels she has few options in her life as she doesn't like her job and feels the only alternative is to marry a man she doesn't love. But the play itself seems to suggest she had other options but chose not to take them (the lively telephonist offers to set her up on a double date in the first scene, for example.) As Nash said above (and as my daughter who went with me voiced) its relevance to contemporary issues seems limited. She is an immensely frustrating character. Emily Berrington struggles to find much of interest - there is quite a demanding early speech which didn't come off at all.
So - it looked great' the set changes (except for the annoying blinding lights - I took to closing my eyes for those) were impressive and the opening was stunning. And it's only 90 minutes long.
P.S. Some theatre trivia for you: Clark Gable made his Broadway debut as the Man in this.
|
|
294 posts
|
Post by dani on Jun 12, 2018 11:47:03 GMT
Reviews are coming out for this. 3* Whatsonstage, ES, Arts Desk. 4* Independent, Time Out, Stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 17:22:15 GMT
Reviews are coming out for this. 3* Whatsonstage, ES, Arts Desk. 4* Independent, Time Out, Stage. 4* Guardian, Libby Purves, Radio Times (Exeunt is also 4-ish but, as usual, no star rating given). 3* Shenton, Times, Telegraph. |
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jun 15, 2018 7:31:33 GMT
I can see the terrible view from the cheap side stall seats has been discussed, but another issue for me is that a lot of the action seems to happen stage right, so if you're sitting in the left side stall seats you miss considerably more than if you were on the other side. A bit like the stage left of The Ferryman. I would say in the Honeymoon, Maternal, and Domestic episodes I couldn't see 70% of what was going on. You also miss the reflections in the mirror which at least from the press images look really good for certain scenes. I really wish they would price these seats differently or inform people of this, because although I could only afford the cheapest seats I would have definitely chosen the right side. What made this even more infuriating is that because there were empty seats in the centre they moved everybody in the right stalls to better seats even though we in the left had the worse view. Leaving empty seats with a better view.
I liked what I saw although the modern touches were a huge misstep in my opinion. The play is anachronistic with the modern relevance I felt being more about the meatgrinder of the big city, being made less than human, which works just as well in an entirely 1920s setting. In fact as a Londoner certain scenes such as the office, bar and hospital with the drilling really resonated with me but hearing her talk about not wanting to divorce with a Fox News reporter there really jarred. The ending should have been a lot more harrowing, I was hoping for something more like Dancer in the Dark (why just shave off a few strands hair?) but it was fairly tame and over far too quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:21:39 GMT
To avoid humiliation when collecting tickets - should I be pronouncing this Mashinal or Makkinal??
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:26:27 GMT
There's only one auditorium, just say "hello, collecting ticket for [your name here]".  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:55:14 GMT
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 19, 2018 9:57:45 GMT
I thought it was Mack - but article suggests author wanted Mash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 10:02:32 GMT
There's only one auditorium, just say "hello, collecting ticket for [your name here]". Tricks of the trade! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 11:10:07 GMT
The word is partly the hard Mack of 'Deus ex Machina' and the soft Mash of 'Machine', both of which Treadwell seems to have been referencing. Then there's the question of emphasis - first, second or third syllable? Each has been used at different times. Treadwell appears to have preferred the softer version but historically the harder version has taken preference so take your pick!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 19:55:22 GMT
We enter a darker than usual auditorium so the blinding lights which punctuate each of the nine ‘episodes’ of this piece come as a shock, I suppose to remind us of the shocks of electricity that will pass through the young woman’s body in the final moments of the play.
It’s a shocking story it’s based on really, and reminded me of the Edith Thompson case which preceeded it, becoming a cause celebre in England, and the Alma Rattenbury case a few years after it which was to form the basis of Rattigan’s Cause Celebre much later.
I agree that the play’s structure is uneven: one minute she has taken a lover, the next the husband is gone, and in this production (I didn’t see the NT version back in the 90s) the court scene seems rushed. But overall it is well staged, particularly the earlier scenes in which we are introduced to the idea of machines and how we are all part of them. Cogs in a wheel... The tap, shuffle, ring in the office, played over and over and under the dialogue sets the scene and sets the young woman apart. Very cleverly done. I wasn’t convinced about the gradual move towards the present day with music, props and costumes- I’d have liked the play to stay back in the 20s which would have shocked us even more.
I enjoy spotting the occasional TV personality from yesteryear in a cast, so I was particularly pleased to see Corrie’s Denise Black as the mother. With one scene to play she certainly made the most of it; we see her again, speechless and wide mouthed in the courtroom, hardly able to believe she’s watching her daughter’s downfall, and the moments where she covers her grand-daughter’s ears are poignant and... well... shocking again.
An incredible, intricate, atmospheric sound design, something we often overlook in a show, add to the atmosphere of this intriguing piece.
Glad I saw it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 9:17:45 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 9:36:16 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him. Well that's @abby off Germaine Greer's Christmas card list this year. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 23, 2018 12:40:02 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him.
I liked Emily Berrington as the Young Woman and thought she was credibly lost and vulnerable but I agree she couldn't ultimately muster much sympathy for her character. I think the problem is the wrong-headed updating of the production. What's powerful and courageous and prescient in the 1920s is simply banal when dragged up into the present day. The play desperately needs its context.
When the Prosecutor asks the woman why she didn't simply get a divorce she has no answer and, in this setting, neither does the play.
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jun 23, 2018 13:32:23 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him.
I liked Emily Berrington as the Young Woman and thought she was credibly lost and vulnerable but I agree she couldn't ultimately muster much sympathy for her character. I think the problem is the wrong-headed updating of the production. What's powerful and courageous and prescient in the 1920s is simply banal when dragged up into the present day. The play desperately needs its context.
When the Prosecutor asks the woman why she didn't simply get a divorce she has no answer and, in this setting, neither does the play.
I disagree...(respectfully of course!) The point of the play is that she is so mentally oppressed by her situation that she cannot see a way of escape...even in this day and age people stay with abusive partners, even when logically the sensible thing to do is leave and divorce, as they have been so traumatised that they cannot decide the logical course of action. It is a bit like when someone commits suicide....they often think they are doing their family a favour as they will be "better off without them", even though this is not how the family think at all. Also the "wanting to lie in bed all day" is a classic symptom of depression....you cease to be able to function, so I think this is a symptom of her deep despair at life, rather than laziness! I loved the opening, on the tube train and I really enjoyed Emily Berrington's perfomance. I think it's probably quite apt that some of the audience feel little sympathy for the character as that is partly the point of the story....the same happened then as well....and still happens today. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 19:10:45 GMT
Thought this was a perfectly good production but my main problem was that I had no patience for the central character at all and more or else felt that she got what she deserved by the end. She basically gets married because she can't be bothered to work (she literally talks about wanting to lie in bed till noon); she's not frustrated or oppressed, she's just bloody lazy. My sympathy was all with the husband who perfectly reasonably expected the woman who agreed to marry him of her own free will to give some slight evidence of liking him. Well that's @abby off Germaine Greer's Christmas card list this year. Ha! I actually did think "oh sh*t, do I sound like Germaine 'rapists shouldn't go to jail' Greer but I pressed post anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 19:16:21 GMT
Latecomer Perhaps it got me on a bad day because I'm sick to death of working for a living but I still sodding well have to... I didn't get any sense of the husband being abusive. She just came across as flakey and entitled. Seriously love, none of us like our jobs, that's why it's called work not fun - suck it up or, if you don't want to, accept that you've signed up to suck something else. At least you have the choice - the husband has to turn up to work every day to pay for everyone and I bet he doesn't particularly enjoy it either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 19:18:04 GMT
Oh my God, have I turned into Sarah Vine???
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by theplayer on Jun 23, 2018 21:55:21 GMT
I enjoyed this. It was well performed and the American accents were decent.
I got to meet Emily Berrington afterwards and she was kind enough to let me take a photo with her.
I'm a big fan of her in Humans as well. She is by far the best Synth.
|
|
