Post by jadnoop on Jun 23, 2018 23:34:25 GMT
Just came out of tonight's performance, and I'm not really sure quite what I thought of it.
I agree with some of the comments here: Rather than being lazy, my feeling was that the main character was someone with limited freedom or agency (controlled by the males in her life [boss, husband, doctor, lawyer, priest] as well as the expectations of her mother), feelings that were amplified by suffering from serious depression /mental problems.
Its interesting to see the comments about domestic abuse, both here and in the programme. I didn't see anything that definitively screamed '(physical) abuse' from the husband. He was certainly someone full of himself, and taking full advantage of his position in society, but I wasn't entirely sure if he was just too stupid to see his wife's problems, or if he saw them and didn't care. There was a line that I half-caught (something about him liking to see her shake when he went to touch her(?)), which might suggest the latter, but given that the play seemed to be entirely from her subjective experience, I wasn't clear if this was supposed to be an objective truth.
For me, I found the visuals hit and miss. The style appeared to aim for Terry Gilliam's Brazil or Orson Welles' The Trial, especially in the second scene in an office, but I'm not sure it ever really achieved those heights. Cinema can be so good at placing the viewer in the mind of a character, in large part because it has complete control over point of view, effects and sound. Here though, it didn't quite work for me. The background sounds in particular (drills, rain, trains, etc) didn't seem to overwhelm and oppress in the way that she clearly experienced it. The overall result felt like you were distanced from, rather than immersed in, the protagonists viewpoint.
The acting also seemed hit and miss. The main lady was great, as was her lover, but some others didn't quite ring true for me. In particular, the scene in the bar seemed to have some fairly iffy accents.
All in all, probably only 3 stars for me, but it was certainly a thought-provoking trip to the theatre. I probably preferred Belleville at the Donmar though, which had similar themes.
Incidentally, a question for those that know the play well. Was the script unchanged from its original? Some of it felt very modern, e.g. the overlapping dialogue during the trial. Similarly, was the couple to the left at the bar written as two males? I know there was a reference to Oscar Wilde, but it felt slightly strange to suddenly have two males in a play almost entirely revolving around male-female dynamics.
I agree with some of the comments here: Rather than being lazy, my feeling was that the main character was someone with limited freedom or agency (controlled by the males in her life [boss, husband, doctor, lawyer, priest] as well as the expectations of her mother), feelings that were amplified by suffering from serious depression /mental problems.
Its interesting to see the comments about domestic abuse, both here and in the programme. I didn't see anything that definitively screamed '(physical) abuse' from the husband. He was certainly someone full of himself, and taking full advantage of his position in society, but I wasn't entirely sure if he was just too stupid to see his wife's problems, or if he saw them and didn't care. There was a line that I half-caught (something about him liking to see her shake when he went to touch her(?)), which might suggest the latter, but given that the play seemed to be entirely from her subjective experience, I wasn't clear if this was supposed to be an objective truth.
For me, I found the visuals hit and miss. The style appeared to aim for Terry Gilliam's Brazil or Orson Welles' The Trial, especially in the second scene in an office, but I'm not sure it ever really achieved those heights. Cinema can be so good at placing the viewer in the mind of a character, in large part because it has complete control over point of view, effects and sound. Here though, it didn't quite work for me. The background sounds in particular (drills, rain, trains, etc) didn't seem to overwhelm and oppress in the way that she clearly experienced it. The overall result felt like you were distanced from, rather than immersed in, the protagonists viewpoint.
The acting also seemed hit and miss. The main lady was great, as was her lover, but some others didn't quite ring true for me. In particular, the scene in the bar seemed to have some fairly iffy accents.
All in all, probably only 3 stars for me, but it was certainly a thought-provoking trip to the theatre. I probably preferred Belleville at the Donmar though, which had similar themes.
Incidentally, a question for those that know the play well. Was the script unchanged from its original? Some of it felt very modern, e.g. the overlapping dialogue during the trial. Similarly, was the couple to the left at the bar written as two males? I know there was a reference to Oscar Wilde, but it felt slightly strange to suddenly have two males in a play almost entirely revolving around male-female dynamics.
