|
|
Post by keyspi on Oct 8, 2024 1:12:16 GMT
Saw this tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
5,794 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Oct 8, 2024 7:03:41 GMT
Saw this tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it 🤷🏻♂️ Sure you were at the Gielgud? |
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 8, 2024 8:49:54 GMT
Whereas in truth, it's a massively self-indulgent and selfish performance. He spends the entire time trying to pull focus and doesn't pay his colleagues the courtesy of even looking at them for the vast majority of the time. Everything is played out front whilst the rest of the cast attempt to act with some kind of naturalism. Just horrible. I'm glad the production gives us something a bit different, and that Matthew Warchus tries to draw us into Captain Boyle's feckless ways by having him relate to US as well as the other characters.
It's not "self-indulgent and selfish" for an actor to fulfil a director's vision of a fourth wall breaking "Chaplinesque" comedian of a Captain Boyle, whose cluelessness about civil war and everything else might mirror for us our own cluelessness about civil war and everything else.
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
And when a comic performer does everything to engage the audience in this vision, that is an act of communion and generosity with the audience.
If Warchus's vision of a comedian bumbling around relating to the audience, before hell freezes over, is too tacky for you (listen to all the Chaplinesque piano accompaniment music, reinforcing that vision even in the interval, when Rylance isn't on stage), or just doesn't work for you (it does for me), that's not on Rylance, who is doing EXACTLY what he has been asked to do. And brilliantly, as he is one of the funniest actors around.  |
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Oct 8, 2024 9:09:16 GMT
Whereas in truth, it's a massively self-indulgent and selfish performance. He spends the entire time trying to pull focus and doesn't pay his colleagues the courtesy of even looking at them for the vast majority of the time. Everything is played out front whilst the rest of the cast attempt to act with some kind of naturalism. Just horrible. I'm glad the production gives us something a bit different, and that Matthew Warchus tries to draw us into Captain Boyle's feckless ways by having him relate to US as well as the other characters.
It's not "self-indulgent and selfish" for an actor to fulfil a director's vision of a fourth wall breaking "Chaplinesque" comedian of a Captain Boyle, whose cluelessness about civil war and everything else might mirror for us our own cluelessness about civil war and everything else.
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
And when a comic performer does everything to engage the audience in this vision, that is an act of communion and generosity with the audience.
If Warchus's vision of a comedian bumbling around relating to the audience, before hell freezes over, is too tacky for you (listen to all the Chaplinesque piano accompaniment music, reinforcing that vision even in the interval, when Rylance isn't on stage), or just doesn't work for you (it does for me), that's not on Rylance, who is doing EXACTLY what he has been asked to do. And brilliantly, as he is one of the funniest actors around. If it worked for you, then great. We all see something different. I've no idea whether it was Warchus' vision, or whether Rylance is just plain undirectable. I didn't see anything in his surroundings to suggest the other performers were in on it. And it left me bewildered as to the style of the piece I was watching - with everybody else doing pretty naturalistic acting and Rylance in his own little world. If the idea was to truly commit to the Chaplin thing, then I think they'd have been better advised bringing someone like Cal McCrystal on board: the clowning escapades in Act One (burning his crotch with the sausage pan) and Act Two (chucking his cup of tea over his shoulder) were laboured and for me, didn't have a ring of truth, and therefore left me completely cold. It also meant that the gear shift to Act Three, where he suddenly becomes a violent monster was far too jarring for me. What are we supposed to think of him by that point? Betrayed that this apparently genial figure who was winking at us in Act One is not the harmless layabout we thought he was? It's clearly a marmite performance, and I say this as someone who has really enjoyed Rylance in the past. I just don't think he's got it right on this occasion. |
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 8, 2024 9:21:59 GMT
Whereas in truth, it's a massively self-indulgent and selfish performance. He spends the entire time trying to pull focus and doesn't pay his colleagues the courtesy of even looking at them for the vast majority of the time. Everything is played out front whilst the rest of the cast attempt to act with some kind of naturalism. Just horrible. I'm glad the production gives us something a bit different, and that Matthew Warchus tries to draw us into Captain Boyle's feckless ways by having him relate to US as well as the other characters.
It's not "self-indulgent and selfish" for an actor to fulfil a director's vision of a fourth wall breaking "Chaplinesque" comedian of a Captain Boyle, whose cluelessness about civil war and everything else might mirror for us our own cluelessness about civil war and everything else.
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
And when a comic performer does everything to engage the audience in this vision, that is an act of communion and generosity with the audience.
If Warchus's vision of a comedian bumbling around relating to the audience, before hell freezes over, is too tacky for you (listen to all the Chaplinesque piano accompaniment music, reinforcing that vision even in the interval, when Rylance isn't on stage), or just doesn't work for you (it does for me), that's not on Rylance, who is doing EXACTLY what he has been asked to do. And brilliantly, as he is one of the funniest actors around. I would do some digging and check how Rylance actually approaches his work before you say he’s innocent in this and it’s all Warchus’ “vision” and that he’s just doing what he was told to do. Rylance has a history of knowing the script inside out for rehearsals, but choosing to say his own version of the lines, until he feels comfortable coming around to saying the writers, thus making the process incredibly difficult for those around him. Several actors including Joanna Lumley, have spoken about his way of working. It is an example of what you say Rylance isn’t doing which is to be selfish onstage. Reports are already known, and have been mentioned above, that the rehearsals haven’t been and the company aren’t a happy one. When a play is being pulled so far from what it was, and the majority of the acting ensemble are trying to be just that, an ensemble, it makes sense that something has gone wrong allowing Rylance to perform in this way. It is actually the opposite of generous, as some reviews have pointed out. And you cite One Man Two Guvnors breaking of the 4th wall etc: those moments were in that script. What Rylance is doing up there is not in the script. And never has been. I say all this as a Rylance fan. But something had gone terribly wrong with this production, and the dominance given to Rylance. And I’m pretty sure it’s not Warchus’ vision: either planned or perceived. Despite them having a long term creative relationship together, Rylance has been given too much free reign here, resulting in a miss. |
|
|
|
Post by jake on Oct 8, 2024 9:33:54 GMT
I would say Rylance's performance is generous because he gives everything of himself to fulfilling that vision and drawing us into this mindstate. It's like James Corden bumbling about in a mafia stand-off in "One Man Two Guvnors," breaking the wall to share sandwiches with the audience, inviting us into our own haplessness and insularity in the face of incomprehensible events.
The categorical difference is that One Man, Two Guvnors is billed as a play by Richard Bean. The fact that it's an adaptation of Il Servitore di Due Padroni is acknowledged but it doesn't claim to be Goldoni's play. Another significant difference is that Corden's clowning is entirely consistent with the pantomime atmosphere inherent in Bean's text. A large part of the criticism of this production in general and Rylance in particular is that many people feel the atmosphere created (if any!) is at odds with the play's message (as many of us understand it) and that his performance is at odds with those of almost everyone else on stage. If the intention was to show that the character is indeed living in a world of his own and has little idea of how others see him, all I can say is that having the actor perform as if he were in another kind of spectacle from the rest of the cast is a very heavy-handed way of getting across a pretty obvious feature of the story. (I keep imagining Rylance in rehearsals muttering 'Feck...arse...girls...' until Warchus tells him 'No, Mark...it's Captain Jack...) |
|
|
|
Post by julia432 on Oct 8, 2024 13:46:13 GMT
I wonder if the disharmony is all to do with Rylance?
Has anyone actually heard details?
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 8, 2024 14:24:13 GMT
quite the focused interest you have here, julia432Welcome to the board. |
|
|
|
Post by julia432 on Oct 8, 2024 14:30:25 GMT
quite the focused interest you have here, julia432Welcome to the board. Thank you for the welcome. lol- curiosity. I saw the play recently and even before the reviews noticed Rylance’s selfishness on stage. Other actors fantastic but didn’t seem to have gelled. In saying that I went early doors.. |
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Oct 11, 2024 9:13:10 GMT
"The delicate balance between character comedy and the grim context of conflict and deprivation is difficult to negotiate at the best of times and this, alas, is not one of them. The fragile edifice is totally destroyed by Rylance’s theatrical wrecking ball of a performance, leaving the rest of the cast to pick up the debris.
Appearing like a sozzled Charlie Chaplin, he addresses the audience in the style of a Music Hall comedian, breaking the fourth wall with a tsunami of nudge-nudge wink-winkery, double takes and ‘amusing’ gestures whenever he thinks he can get a laugh. It’s an act of theatrical vandalism that renders the shift from comedy to tragedy utterly unconvincing."
From Neil Norman's review in the Express. Pretty spot-on.
|
|
3,528 posts
|
Post by Rory on Oct 11, 2024 9:35:27 GMT
I had a feeling at the outset they wouldn't be able to get the tone, accents etc right with this production but they appear to have made, as Captain Jack and Joxer may have said, a complete bollix of it.
|
|
24 posts
|
Post by scotty8692 on Oct 11, 2024 12:03:28 GMT
Pleased I didn't get a ticket for this-I was thinking there was too much talent involved for characters in this to end up like stock or stereotypical characters! Thought the Nash's production of The Plough and The Stars 8 years ago showed you can do O'Casey on stage in London with the humour, but not having to sacrifice the more serious tone of the piece. Enjoyed Rylance in Jerusalem during the recent revival, so it's a shame that this seems a performance to forget, rather than one to be remembered.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Oct 11, 2024 12:15:21 GMT
The review on The Arts Desk is closer to my thoughts, though she didn't appreciate the ending either:
Interesting to learn J Smith-Cameron has played Juno before.
The review mentions Chaplin and 'theatricality' - which was vaudeville to me.
No reviewer seems to mention Rylance's excessive makeup, the heavy rouge, etc. As lawyers say, that seemed to go to character (literally).
|
|
