|
|
Post by missthelma on Feb 23, 2019 19:37:46 GMT
Dear God. This is an absolute mess.
It felt like it had been staged after an 'ideas board' at one of those dreadful workshops run by fresh faced facilitators who call everyone 'guys' regardless of the gender make up of the room. 'Just remember there are no bad ideas!!'
Live jazz band!
Revolve Stage!
On stage seating!
Tap dancing!
Random Singing!
Dance marathons!
Colour blind casting!
Diverse Casting!
Anachronistic music!
Literally it seemed everything had been thrown at this but without any clear idea of what was trying to be said. The colour blind idea was great to evoke modern American families but ruined by casting three generic families who were all the same. Why not have one ethnically diverse family rather than splitting it across nine people. What did that actually achieve? This also served to confuse the plot as scenes which should have run seamlessly had lessened impact as you weren't sure exactly who that was on stage, is that the son or somebody else? Hang on who's Sidney? The fried chicken and WPA scenes suffered badly from that. Plus Arthur Miller is hardly known for writing strong complex female parts so why split it across three people giving them appreciably less to do.
I don't know the play so can't say if the fault is in the writing or in the directing/staging. I was surprised to read that the jazz band was put in by Miller in an 86 revision. And where did they go after the interval? Why was the woman who wandered out and sang two numbers apropos of nothing, and not I don't think in character, not with the band? And the tap dance?? Is that always there? If it's new, just why??
The first half felt interminable and they kept wheeling a piano on and off with no discernible purpose for the first 17 hours which was referred to briefly in the second half almost as a magic talisman and then taken off stage. I toyed with leaving at interval but stuck with it, Act 2 felt quite different and like a series of unrelated vignettes which was made worse by the doubling/tripling of actors. The scene for example with the comic strip dialogue writer? How did it relate to anything else?
Did I mention the tap dancing? I suppose on the plus side I can say I've seen an Arthur Miller musical now.
One thing that I found very strange was in the scene at the WPA where the largest actor on stage collapses from hunger and is referred to as 'starving'. I couldn't work out if this was being cruel or trying to get a cheap laugh or making a point that sailed over my head. I found it really jarring. Maybe it's a different actor each performance? I also noted near the begining where the same actor is paired with the smallest person on stage, drawing attention especially to their considerable disparity in size. Am I just being over sensitive?
It was very sparsely attended, from my seat I could see two people in the left of the circle and no one else. Four or five in the centre circle but I couldn't see further back. My entire row of the stalls had five people in it. Also the cast took their one bow at the end then just left the stage. None of that milking the applause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 20:39:36 GMT
It’s entitled ‘a vaudeville’ and that’s what you get. It’s not that difficult to understand (unless someone has no idea what vaudeville was) and pretty easy to make the connection to production style (why there’s tap dancing, dance marathons, a blues singer act (Golda Rosheuvel, absolutely wonderful, as usual)) etc.
The tripling is easy to follow as they are all costumed the same. The shift from a white through to a black family I thought made an interesting point, although the play is nowhere near Miller’s best, so it’s a struggle to tap into the wider resonance. The second act scenes I thought came off stronger, as desperation and anger mounts. It’s Chavkin’s bravura, kinetic direction that makes it work, however, deepening it through the non traditional casting and staging, gving it that vaudeville feel.
All in all it’s a salutary lesson for those amongst us who keep claiming that ‘it’ll turn out alright’. No, it won’t necessarily turn out alright but at least, unlike then, there have been graver and clearer warnings.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 23, 2019 23:56:29 GMT
The first half is slightly over-indulgent but not too bad. The second part, though shorter, drags heavily. The play as a whole sags, typical of what is wrong in it is the overlong and incredible (in the wrong sense of the word) scene where the new president of General Electric sings and dances his way to an explanation of how he got there and why he is going to resign.
Miller may have described as a vaudeville but that is one thing it ain't. It is more reminiscent in parts of Brecht, Arden or Bolt epic play of modern history complete with alienation devices. Frankly the idea of such a self-consciously serious writer as Miller writing a light musical comedy is funnier than its potential execution and not in synch with what he has actually doing which is, as you would expect, writing a serious play of ideas. Except he has the odd bit of music in it.
The tripling is totally unnecessary. It works as an abstract idea but in practice is simply indulgent and doesn't add anything. If you have an Everyman in a play, you don't need three Everymen.
Only Arthur Miller could have had a character say as late as 1980, as Soviet troops fought an imperialistic war in Afghanistan, "I believe in the Soviet Union", and not see the irony in his almost in the same breath condemnation of the equally egregious Vietnam War. Laudable as his stand against McCarthyism was in the fifties, by the eighties he seemed unable to accept that the evils unleashed by Communism had exceeded even those of his Capitalist bete-noire.
Several of the actors seemed to have devices attached to their ears or other parts of their body. Not sure why.
I am a fan of Miller's but, whilst far from being all bad, this is the weakest play of his I have seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Feb 24, 2019 10:56:07 GMT
It’s entitled ‘a vaudeville’ and that’s what you get. It’s not that difficult to understand The reference to it being a vaudeville does make a twisted kind of sense and places some (but not all) of the ideas in a context. Such a shame really that this aspect is not mentioned anywhere that I'd seen and that your reply was the first time I'd heard it highlighted. A little research on my part after your post found it in a couple of reviews but not boldly stated on for example the Old Vic website or any promotional material regarding the play. Given the supposed modernity of this version it's interesting that they chose not to reference in any way the deeply segregated nature of the vaudeville circuits especially when using a POC to sing blues songs. Perhaps that was something they didn't understand..... |
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Feb 24, 2019 11:13:29 GMT
Laudable as his stand against McCarthyism was in the fifties, by the eighties he seemed unable to accept that the evils unleashed by Communism had exceeded even those of his Capitalist bete-noire. A sentiment that remains unresolved in all left leaning politics, never openly engaged except in that what we saw in Russia, was not as Marx intended and will be better next time as it was only implemented by the wrong 'people’ not taking into account the genius of Orwell who understood the underlying drive for power so brilliantly evoked in Animal Farm. Seeing it next weekend, going with low expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 17:19:28 GMT
Clarke Peters being replaced by Sule Rimi. That seems odd to me...
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 7, 2019 0:45:37 GMT
Like most, I normally like to have a good idea of what's going on but I didn't mind at all that this washed over me. Surreal in places. Structure was completely lost to me. Clarke Peters not in evidence but so enjoyed the ensemble company!
Director Rachel Chavkin is definitely a name I will look out for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 7:52:03 GMT
Director Rachel Chavkin is definitely a name I will look out for. Me too. For the purposes of future avoidance of her work. |
|
392 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Mar 7, 2019 15:30:49 GMT
Saw this on Clarke Peters last performance on Saturday. Definitely a mixed bag (mostly down to the original I suspect). The flaws here for me are the same as the ones that I felt afflicted the Lehman trilogy, namely as you progress and the characters spin away from the starting centre you sort of get a who cares affect. So personally thought the first half was interesting and decent and didn't really care about the newer characters that came after the interval. And the end is just five minutes of on stage ranting which is unnecessary. I liked the Vaudeville theme running through it and overall given probably never go to another production of this, this one scraped home as OK.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Mar 7, 2019 16:42:50 GMT
Clarke Peters being replaced by Sule Rimi. That seems odd to me... Practicalities aside I cannot believe the Old Vic didn't think this could cope without star casting. Even Miller's name will bring a healthy but not necessarily strong audience. Perhaps I have underestimated how much it brought in advanced sales. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Mar 8, 2019 1:12:01 GMT
Saw this on Clarke Peters last performance on Saturday. Definitely a mixed bag (mostly down to the original I suspect). The flaws here for me are the same as the ones that I felt afflicted the Lehman trilogy, namely as you progress and the characters spin away from the starting centre you sort of get a who cares affect. So personally thought the first half was interesting and decent and didn't really care about the newer characters that came after the interval. And the end is just five minutes of on stage ranting which is unnecessary. I liked the Vaudeville theme running through it and overall given probably never go to another production of this, this one scraped home as OK. I thought it really benefitted from the rotating stage and 'being in the round'. Together that seemed to create a dynamism which, with the tempo of the script delivery, was very engaging. Given I was worried about the length of the work at the start, it all worked out very well! |
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Mar 8, 2019 6:52:26 GMT
Clarke Peters being replaced by Sule Rimi. That seems odd to me... Practicalities aside I cannot believe the Old Vic didn't think this could cope without star casting. Even Miller's name will bring a healthy but not necessarily strong audience. Perhaps I have underestimated how much it brought in advanced sales. Agreed, very naive of them. Im going in a fortnight because i love Miller and its a rare revival. But when it was first announced, my initial thought was they needed one or two stars but no.. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Mar 8, 2019 12:12:34 GMT
At worst is sheer arrogance about the theatre's standing. I suppose they don't care because All My Sons has the star names and strong numbers but a good playhouse shouldn't rely on a few stand out hits to subsidise the dross.
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Mar 9, 2019 22:50:36 GMT
One for the completist.
Overtly political, whilst Miller’s best plays let you come to his politics in this play he seems to have thought maybe I was too subtle so I will just shout Capitalism bad, Socialism good.
Also hindered by the need to double up due to the number of characters, found myself confused who was on stage at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Mar 14, 2019 17:18:51 GMT
One for the completist. Overtly political, whilst Miller’s best plays let you come to his politics in this play he seems to have thought maybe I was too subtle so I will just shout Capitalism bad, Socialism good. Also hindered by the need to double up due to the number of characters, found myself confused who was on stage at times. Basically thats why im going. With these reviews its not going to be revived for some time! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 9:17:30 GMT
Director Rachel Chavkin is definitely a name I will look out for. Me too. For the purposes of future avoidance of her work. Oh no, don't do that! This one is a dud for sure but her 'Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812' on Broadway was just one of the most thrilling things! |
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Mar 16, 2019 14:12:10 GMT
I really hope it is revived properly quite soon, as I'd like to see it done well. It would be nice but not likely is it? |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Mar 16, 2019 15:04:28 GMT
Me too. For the purposes of future avoidance of her work. Oh no, don't do that! This one is a dud for sure but her 'Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812' on Broadway was just one of the most thrilling things! Also, I hated this but adored Hadestown. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 16, 2019 16:25:05 GMT
Question: is the running time listed on the website (2 hours 30 minutes plus a 20-minute interval) accurate? Seeing it Wednesday afternoon, and it would be helpful to know roughly what time I'll be out of there.
|
|
5,142 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Mar 16, 2019 16:32:04 GMT
Question: is the running time listed on the website (2 hours 30 minutes plus a 20-minute interval) accurate? Seeing it Wednesday afternoon, and it would be helpful to know roughly what time I'll be out of there. Yes, more or less. My matinee was about 2 hours 55 minutes, but it started slightly late cos of a late arriving school party. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 16, 2019 16:33:31 GMT
Question: is the running time listed on the website (2 hours 30 minutes plus a 20-minute interval) accurate? Seeing it Wednesday afternoon, and it would be helpful to know roughly what time I'll be out of there. Yes, more or less. My matinee was about 2 hours 55 minutes, but it started slightly late cos of a late arriving school party. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 19:20:24 GMT
I'm in the theatre now, about to see this. I've never seen an Arthur Miller play live and I'm not particularly excited, I'm only here because Greg Bernstein is in the cast. 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by learfan on Mar 16, 2019 20:14:46 GMT
I'm in the theatre now, about to see this. I've never seen an Arthur Miller play live and I'm not particularly excited, I'm only here because Greg Bernstein is in the cast. 😂 Somewhat stunned to see you at a non musical Daniel! Hope it doesn't put you off. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 20:24:22 GMT
I'm in the theatre now, about to see this. I've never seen an Arthur Miller play live and I'm not particularly excited, I'm only here because Greg Bernstein is in the cast. 😂 My deepest condolences that you are going to sit through this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 20:37:55 GMT
So update, I've just got done getting checked over because I slipped on the curb outside and smacked my head on the concrete! So as you can imagine, I'm gonna have to give this one a miss, head to the train station and go home. Never a dull moment people, never a dull moment.
|
|
