816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Oct 26, 2018 7:53:47 GMT
I hope you enjoy it. I won't get to see it unfortunately unless it has another life elsewhere, which is unlikely: how often do Ibsen plays transfer to the West End?. Last was 2014 ? Almeida “Ghosts” to Trafalgar Studios. It went to New York too. Before that 2005? Almeida “Hedda Gabler” to Duke of York. (I’m only listing these to give you hope). and the stunning A Doll's House starring Hattie Morahan at the Young Vic and then the Duke of Yorks. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 7:55:06 GMT
Last was 2014 ? Almeida “Ghosts” to Trafalgar Studios. It went to New York too. Before that 2005? Almeida “Hedda Gabler” to Duke of York. (I’m only listing these to give you hope). The Young Vic "A Dolls House" transferred in 2013 too. (Damn, beaten to it!) So I will also add that the National's "Hedda Gabler" did quite an extensive tour. Another way of looking at this is that 4 out of 6 of Icke's previous productions at the Almeida have transferred to the West End (1984, Oresteia, Hamlet and Mary Stuart) - only ones that didn't are Uncle Vanya (which would be difficult given the staging) and Mr Burns (which is not surprising  ) |
|
3,535 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 26, 2018 8:36:37 GMT
I could certainly imagine Sonia Friedman bringing this into the Harold Pinter or Duke of York's in the New Year.
|
|
546 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Oct 30, 2018 9:01:02 GMT
Went last night. Came very very close to leaving at the interval (my companion had no such hesitation so I had a bit of extra leg room for act 2) but glad I stayed as the second half is a bit of a romp and had some real magic (as explained in Ryan's spoiler above). It just takes an awful long time to get there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 31, 2018 6:46:18 GMT
Like many here I found the first half awful - the drama of the play constantly undercut by Icke levering in bits of an A Level essay he'd written on the play. I think the main problem with that was that he's just not much of a playwright and his additions were variously dull and incoherent. It's arrogant too, because as an audience we don't need to be spoon-fed a commentary on the themes of the play because we can work them out for ourselves just by watching the play as written. If Rupert Goold had been sent this script by an established playwright he'd have either chucked it in the bin or insisted on massive re-writes, Icke was obviously totally unable to self-edit the piece so Goold should have done something about it. I got the strong impression Icke's success has gone to his head and he's lapsed into self-indulgence.
In the second half however, with fewer self-penned interruptions, I was reminded what a very very good director Icke is - he really should have just directed the play as written (or updated). It's a great play of course, Grandage's definitive Donmar version stands alone, and Simon Stone's updating was good too.
Best child acting I've seen for a long time (not sure which of the two credited actors it was unfortunately). Also a pleasure to see the expert Nicholas Farrell on stage again after many years.
Oh, and just a note to Icke's agent, in a few sections of the play Icke speculates (and presents as fact) the influence that some elements of Ibsen's own private life had on his art. There can be no complaint then if we do that with Icke too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 8:05:31 GMT
Oh, and just a note to Icke's agent, in a few sections of the play Icke speculates (and presents as fact) the influence that some elements of Ibsen's own private life had on his art. There can be no complaint then if we do that with Icke too. But isn't Icke talking about how Ibsen's own life is referenced in his work when on here people just gossip about the fact that they hear he's not supposed to be particularly nice and just use it as an excuse to say nasty things about him. Aren't they two different things? I don't necessarily see how one gives the green light to the other. |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Oct 31, 2018 8:26:43 GMT
Like many here I found the first half awful - the drama of the play constantly undercut by Icke levering in bits of an A Level essay he'd written on the play. I think the main problem with that was that he's just not much of a playwright and his additions were variously dull and incoherent. It's arrogant too, because as an audience we don't need to be spoon-fed a commentary on the themes of the play because we can work them out for ourselves just by watching the play as written. If Rupert Goold had been sent this script by an established playwright he'd have either chucked it in the bin or insisted on massive re-writes, Icke was obviously totally unable to self-edit the piece so Goold should have done something about it. I got the strong impression Icke's success has gone to his head and he's lapsed into self-indulgence. In the second half however, with fewer self-penned interruptions, I was reminded what a very very good director Icke is - he really should have just directed the play as written (or updated). It's a great play of course, Grandage's definitive Donmar version stands alone, and Simon Stone's updating was good too. Best child acting I've seen for a long time (not sure which of the two credited actors it was unfortunately). Also a pleasure to see the expert Nicholas Farrell on stage again after many years. Oh, and just a note to Icke's agent, in a few sections of the play Icke speculates (and presents as fact) the influence that some elements of Ibsen's own private life had on his art. There can be no complaint then if we do that with Icke too. For some of the stuff to work in the second half in relation to breaking out of the fourth wall or interrupting asides, you need to have the fourth wall stuff and asides established in the 1st act. As a whole, I think it works. The icke/Ibsen comparison is different, since Ibsen is dead of course, as his any of his family. Historical speculation is rather different to speculation on a living person. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 31, 2018 8:36:56 GMT
Oh, and just a note to Icke's agent, in a few sections of the play Icke speculates (and presents as fact) the influence that some elements of Ibsen's own private life had on his art. There can be no complaint then if we do that with Icke too. But isn't Icke talking about how Ibsen's own life is referenced in his work when on here people just gossip about the fact that they hear he's not supposed to be particularly nice and just use it as an excuse to say nasty things about him. Aren't they two different things? I don't necessarily see how one gives the green light to the other. You might be right. But I think that various comments about Icke being disliked and being regarded as somewhat arrogant in real life (one of the comments that got taken down despite the fact this has been documented on the record elsewhere) is a perfectly valid area of discussion given that (for example) it seems to be how he treats the audience here, also for example Parsley's speculation that Icke's oft mentioned working class origins have given him a bit of a chip on his shoulder about displaying his learning. Icke really strains to point out that he thinks Ibsen's life references his work - for example he informs us that Ibsen fathered a child with a servant (when he was 18 actually) who he stopped supporting when he was 13 and … oooh look ! ….. it's Hedvig's 13th birthday party in the play ! Except it isn't, in the actual play she's 14 and it's her 15th birthday party. Just as an aside, one quite irritating thing about Icke's writing - which he shares with Sir David Hare - is that he uses Americanisms - there are a few here, referring to small animals as "critters" for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 9:02:53 GMT
I loved this production. As I said somewhere above the “lecture” at the beginning reflects Ibsen’s rather expository method in the original play where we are told the whole backstory by a couple of characters in the play’s opening moments. I love the interpolation of Ibsen’s life into the mix because it complicates the way you relate to the play and I found myself reflecting on the relationship between art and life and the fact that there is no simple correlation. I may be wrong but I think Ibsen’s child with the servant may have been a boy, not a girl. If this is the case then Icke might be playing with us even more than we think, although I admit that he could have finessed this. Icke has now made me obsessed with this play which I hadn’t read since I was a child. By the way I am dying to know what people were saying about Icke on here. Will someone either DM me or risk the wrath of the moderators and give me an update.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Oct 31, 2018 9:18:08 GMT
Just as an aside, one quite irritating thing about Icke's writing - which he shares with Sir David Hare - is that he uses Americanisms - there are a few here, referring to small animals as "critters" for example. Perhaps he's a fan of Elly May Clampett of The Beverly Hillbillies. She loved her critters! i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/51/79/a1517967501b7df3856f0a910dd2a686.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 9:54:35 GMT
Oh, and just a note to Icke's agent, in a few sections of the play Icke speculates (and presents as fact) the influence that some elements of Ibsen's own private life had on his art. There can be no complaint then if we do that with Icke too. But isn't Icke talking about how Ibsen's own life is referenced in his work when on here people just gossip about the fact that they hear he's not supposed to be particularly nice and just use it as an excuse to say nasty things about him. Aren't they two different things? I don't necessarily see how one gives the green light to the other. Absolutely, and personal vendettas from ‘insiders’ under the cloak of anonymity have no place here. Especially as their arrogance places the moderators in a terrible position and the board as a whole in a precarious one. There is a lot of class snobbery involved, as he doesn’t lie low and relate to and kowtow to his ‘betters’ as us working class oiks are supposed to. The idea that he is ‘compensating’ is particularly typical of that mindset, although, I suppose, in a business where our greatest playwright is thought of as not being clever enough (through his upbringing) to have written his works what can you expect? Anyway, I’m seeing it today. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 31, 2018 11:16:45 GMT
There is a lot of class snobbery involved, as he doesn’t lie low and relate to and kowtow to his ‘betters’ as us working class oiks are supposed to. He's not working class - he doesn't even claim to be, he is middle class and graduated from Oxbridge. No different to, say, Peter Hall and Trevor Nunn (although they were from working class homes) and a host of others. So I don't think class snobbery is involved in his reputation at all, although he may think it is. More likely in my view is simple envy because he's been successful, plus a number of actors who don't like working in directors' theatre because it is less collaborative. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 11:39:58 GMT
There is a lot of class snobbery involved, as he doesn’t lie low and relate to and kowtow to his ‘betters’ as us working class oiks are supposed to. He's not working class - he doesn't even claim to be, he is middle class and graduated from Oxbridge. No different to, say, Peter Hall and Trevor Nunn (although they were from working class homes) and a host of others. So I don't think class snobbery is involved in his reputation at all, although he may think it is. More likely in my view is simple envy because he's been successful, plus a number of actors who don't like working in directors' theatre because it is less collaborative. Well he went to a comprehensive as opposed to the independent educated Hall (albeit as a scholarship pupil) or grammar school educated Nunn. It makes a big difference and makes any route to Oxbridge less open. How education changes may have weakened social mobility is another discussion, though. I very much agree on the envy and Regietheater aspect (see David Hare etc.). How such directors build a group of trusted performers is also irksome to those not ‘chosen’ (see Rice, Mitchell, McBurney etc). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 1:01:32 GMT
Loved this today and, for me, that happens rarely with Ibsen. The Chekhovian first act, before the plot heaviness kicks in is a riveting wallow in lies and self deception and, instead of the usual frustration I have with his characters, that layer of undercutting commentary made me warm to them. Indeed, it did so in a way which paid off handsomely in a second half of melodrama tropes now refreshed by an extra complexity of responses and thoughts about the nature of those responses.
Reality has to be hard earned in a medium that lies as a matter of course and here, so much so, that I could be persuaded that Ibsen really was the equal of his Russian successor.
I saw Chekhov’s Last Play at the BAC later, for which anything that I post would be too spoilery but, again, the nature of truth, lies and reality is in question. Something that has been concerning me lately is the culpability of those of us who trade in fictions in a world where lies are destroying the fabric of a hard won society. In a post truth world, are our lies as storytellers the gateway to destruction by the morally corrupt? Both these shows are powerfully engaging with these sort of questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 1, 2018 7:00:03 GMT
Something that has been concerning me lately is the culpability of those of us who trade in fictions in a world where lies are destroying the fabric of a hard won society. Particularly interesting that in an addition that is entirely Icke's - not in the original at all - he specifically calls out left-wing politics as trading in lies and being detached from the real world. A proposition you don't often see on stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 10:16:54 GMT
Something that has been concerning me lately is the culpability of those of us who trade in fictions in a world where lies are destroying the fabric of a hard won society. Particularly interesting that in an addition that is entirely Icke's - not in the original at all - he specifically calls out left-wing politics as trading in lies and being detached from the real world. A proposition you don't often see on stage. He doesn’t appear to be making a direct connection to that, although the character is most definitely held up as an example of ‘shaming’ and its potential for increasing rather than decreasing any effect on the innocent. On a side note, and connected to the discussion elsewhere on non age fitting actors, in the first English language production of the play the original Hedwig appears to have been pushing forty! Thankfully we are blessed with many brilliant child actors nowadays and the one I saw (Grace Doherty, from looking at the headshots) was very much in that frame. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 1, 2018 10:25:07 GMT
The child actor I saw as Hedvig in this production was terrific.
Some trivia for you: When Bette Davis was young, she was taken to a production of 'The Wild Duck' in Boston. A young actress called Peg Entwistle played Hedvig and Davis said it was that performance that made her determined to become an actress.
And Peg Entwistle went on to a certain sad fame herself - after a series of setbacks in her acting career, she was the first person to throw themselves off the 'Hollywood' sign.
Edit: Editing to add the above sounded more ominous than I meant it to! Most Hedvigs go on to long and happy lives I'm sure. It was Sinead Matthews at the Donmar in 2005 (weirdly, in my memory I had thought it was Felicity Jones - what was I thinking of?)
|
|
116 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Nov 1, 2018 15:11:32 GMT
You were thinking of that other production at the Donmar, around the same time as The Wild Duck. German. Schiller? Felicity Jones was in that. Directed by Jonathan Munby I think. That's all I've got. They are a bit similar.
Following a google: Schiller's Luise Miller. Grandage, not Munby; and 2011 whereas Wild Duck was in 2005. 5/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2018 15:12:25 GMT
Felicity Jones was in Schiller's Luise Miller at the Donmar, but that was 2011, not 2005!
|
|
39 posts
|
Post by pochard on Nov 1, 2018 16:39:21 GMT
Edit: Editing to add the above sounded more ominous than I meant it to! Most Hedvigs go on to long and happy lives I'm sure. It was Sinead Matthews at the Donmar in 2005 (weirdly, in my memory I had thought it was Felicity Jones - what was I thinking of?) Was it The Chalk Garden in 2008? |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 1, 2018 17:08:14 GMT
Oh my giddy aunt - I rather think you are ALL right. Somehow I conflated The Chalk Garden (I remember Jones was playing very young) and Luise Miller(which I have pretty much no recollection of except for Higgins - though again - I thought HE was the The Wild Duck, but no, that was Paul Hilton - and the dress that Jones wore, but I checked back and yes, I had tickets for that and think now I rather recall liking Alex Kingston in it) and turned them into a single production of The Wild Duck. My only excuse is that there was a period of my life when I was working 60 hours week which is a bit of a blur.
But thanks for your detective work!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 9:37:48 GMT
Did anyone see these at opening night? did anyone walk out? (apologies if discussed, I did have a quick scroll)
I await my call from Icke's agent for RT'ing and posting on here, but my Lawyers would like me to point out I and Morgan are asking 2 factual questions: did anyone see these signs and did anyone walk out?
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Nov 4, 2018 9:40:17 GMT
Did anyone see these at opening night? did anyone walk out? (apologies if discussed, I did have a quick scroll) I await my call from Icke's agent for RT'ing and posting on here, but my Lawyers would like me to point out I and Morgan are asking 2 factual questions: did anyone see these signs and did anyone walk out? What an odd sign. Wonder what it refers to |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 10:12:30 GMT
Annnnnd already an innocent post asking legitimate questions has been demanded to be removed from Twitter. Honestly I like the man's work, but you can be easily put off a person.
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Nov 4, 2018 10:16:33 GMT
@emicardiff - Whatever you linked to appears to have vanished...
|
|
)
