|
Post by aspieandy on May 16, 2024 16:28:14 GMT
The audience when I went were engaged and willing to go on this journey.
How could you tell that ? Becasue I was sitting at the side, above the Stalls, and it was . bright
Also because it is part of the pleasure for me to glance across.
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by nash16 on May 16, 2024 22:13:44 GMT
Well, how disappointing was this? And where did those 5* reviews come from? Bizarre.
Loved BA’s Three Sisters at the Young Vic however many moons ago, but this was just dead dead dead. The acting styles all over the shop, including that deadly just-speak-with-no-emotion-or-meaning vibe younger actors seem to have fallen into. Nina Hoss was good, but not great, and the less said about the disco the better.
I didn’t care for anyone on that stage, not even dear June Watson. And the people sat next to Nina Hoss sadly left at the interval.
And why on earth hasn’t anyone done anything about the gun wielding Epikhodov wearing a Virginia Tech jacket? Yikes. I get “the point”, but distasteful, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 17, 2024 5:42:20 GMT
How could you tell that ? Becasue I was sitting at the side, above the Stalls, and it was . bright
Also because it is part of the pleasure for me to glance across.
Well, I could see the audience too but I couldn't tell what they were thinking. From what I could tell the audience when I was there were as split as the reviews, there were about 10 who gave a standing ovation at the end (the 5* group) and about 10 who left at the interval (the 1*). Of the rest only about 3-4 of them ever laughed out loud for the comedy moments. At the end the views of the people immediately sitting around me were negative (one called the whole experience "punishing") but no doubt there were positive views from others. There were a few Germans near me too presumably there for Nina Hoss so they probably liked it. As you liked it I'd be interested to hear your take on this bit: In the text there's a bit where they are all lying around outside and a tramp/stranger come in begging for money and scares them. Conventionally he is presented as a threatening potentially violent character and the implication is clear - the Russian revolution is coming in a few years and people like him will sweep away everyone in the family. In this production though it was a small boy who asked the way (as per the text) but then sang a long song that I wasn't familiar with and which didn't seem to relate to anything at all. Then he got his money and left. What was the point of that ? Why would Varya be scared of him (per the text) ? Did you know what the song was and did that somehow convey a message of some sort ? For me it was just a few wasted minutes
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 17, 2024 16:45:28 GMT
SPOILER ALERT!! + got to dash to the Royal Court >>
@jan It's a beautiful song. The key lyric is this, better to include the lyric than the whole song imo. I was affected, which is quite rare >>
Just give me one thing That I can hold on to To believe in this livin' Is just a hard way to go
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 17, 2024 22:10:57 GMT
I didn’t like this at all, and I really wanted to. Having never seen The Cherry Orchard nor anything directed by this person I had no idea what to expect, and was really disappointed. I hated the way it was staged, the lights were directly on my eye line in second row all the first act which didn’t help.
it felt like there are too many actors and it’s very hard to work out who they are id you aren’t familiar with the play- or to even care about them. As there is nowhere for anyone to sit or lean on they keep pacing and running around the stage in a way that was exaggerated/ forced/
It was all confusing and slightly unhinged, including the costumes. The acting was over the top and weird. I haven’t made up my mind if it’s the play I didn’t like much or the production or both. Likely both! I was bored and completely indifferent to anyone’s plight in the story. Lady sat next to me left at the interval, I should have done the same…only saving grace of this evening was the free wine.
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 18, 2024 6:38:32 GMT
I didn’t like this at all, and I really wanted to. Having never seen The Cherry Orchard nor anything directed by this person I had no idea what to expect, and was really disappointed. I hated the way it was staged, the lights were directly on my eye line in second row all the first act which didn’t help. it felt like there are too many actors and it’s very hard to work out who they are id you aren’t familiar with the play- or to even care about them. As there is nowhere for anyone to sit or lean on they keep pacing and running around the stage in a way that was exaggerated/ forced/ It was all confusing and slightly unhinged, including the costumes. The acting was over the top and weird. I haven’t made up my mind if it’s the play I didn’t like much or the production or both. Likely both! I was bored and completely indifferent to anyone’s plight in the story. Lady sat next to me left at the interval, I should have done the same…only saving grace of this evening was the free wine. having slept on it and being unable to edit my post, I have a couple points to add. It felt like not even the actors cared much for any of it, I don't know if the fact that they all sit next to audience members adds to this impression...I was in a corner of row BB and sitting next to the youngest and oldest women. The former kept smiling and making eye contact with the actors sitting at the opposite end of the stage. In fact, they all kept doing this sort of thing even during the play. It just felt like this was a dress rehearsal. Maybe it was intentional? whatever it was, it was distracting and odd. In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke.
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on May 18, 2024 6:45:38 GMT
I agree with those who didn’t feel the singing worked, but (unlike Jan’s experience) when I went there was a lot of audience laughter, particularly in the first hour, and I think that made it a lot easier to enjoy the style of this production.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 18, 2024 9:16:39 GMT
In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke. In general the adaptation is very close to the original in terms of the characters and plot and the scenes and so on. It is updated of course but even things like the business with the vapes is there in the original but with cigars. The only major addition, beyond bits of staging, are the songs. In a conventional production the hardest character to carry off is Charlotta and the magic trick stuff is in the original, it is hard to make any sense of that character - I thought here actually that was quite well done mainly because the rest of the production followed her lead and was equally odd. The central focus of conventional production is the Lopakhin/Varya relationship, it's why actors like Simon Russell-Beale get mis-cast as Lopakhin, but here that was totally thrown away, it was hard to believe they were anything other than strangers to each other. The first production of this play I saw was excellent and I rated the play highly but subsequently I've come to see it as the least good of the four great Chekhov plays.
|
|
|
Post by lt on May 18, 2024 9:21:34 GMT
I agree with those who didn’t feel the singing worked, but (unlike Jan’s experience) when I went there was a lot of audience laughter, particularly in the first hour, and I think that made it a lot easier to enjoy the style of this production. I'm puzzled why other people laughing make it easier to enjoy the production?
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on May 18, 2024 10:12:53 GMT
I agree with those who didn’t feel the singing worked, but (unlike Jan’s experience) when I went there was a lot of audience laughter, particularly in the first hour, and I think that made it a lot easier to enjoy the style of this production. I'm puzzled why other people laughing make it easier to enjoy the production? I suppose because being in an audience is a communal activity, and being among people who are relaxed and laughing makes me more likely to share that reaction. This production is meant to be funny, so I doubt I’d have enjoyed if if I’d been on a night when the audience wasn’t receptive to the jokes.
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 18, 2024 10:18:33 GMT
Fwiw, I liked the rubbish, faux attempts to mimic western Bohemia (yes, we've just come from Paris, dahhling). Even the decadence is mannered.
You can almost see it mirrored today in the lifestyles of some Russian Oligarchs (and wives!). Which may explain the occasional modern intrusion.
So a Russian play in which the author mocks posh Russians for trying to be western, etc, etc (<< perhaps cutting edge comedy, if you are Russian in the 19zeros. Perhaps not entirely unamusing nowadays)
|
|
|
Post by lt on May 18, 2024 10:27:12 GMT
I didn’t like this at all, and I really wanted to. Having never seen The Cherry Orchard nor anything directed by this person I had no idea what to expect, and was really disappointed. I hated the way it was staged, the lights were directly on my eye line in second row all the first act which didn’t help. it felt like there are too many actors and it’s very hard to work out who they are id you aren’t familiar with the play- or to even care about them. As there is nowhere for anyone to sit or lean on they keep pacing and running around the stage in a way that was exaggerated/ forced/ It was all confusing and slightly unhinged, including the costumes. The acting was over the top and weird. I haven’t made up my mind if it’s the play I didn’t like much or the production or both. Likely both! I was bored and completely indifferent to anyone’s plight in the story. Lady sat next to me left at the interval, I should have done the same…only saving grace of this evening was the free wine. having slept on it and being unable to edit my post, I have a couple points to add. It felt like not even the actors cared much for any of it, I don't know if the fact that they all sit next to audience members adds to this impression...I was in a corner of row BB and sitting next to the youngest and oldest women. The former kept smiling and making eye contact with the actors sitting at the opposite end of the stage. In fact, they all kept doing this sort of thing even during the play. It just felt like this was a dress rehearsal. Maybe it was intentional? whatever it was, it was distracting and odd. In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke. I think - aside from the criticisms I've already made - this is a particularly confusing production for those new to The Cherry Orchard. It really feels like a case of The Emperor's New Clothes to me. It's the only time I've left a theatre feeling duped, I actually wrote to the Donmar to complain about the production, I've never done that before for any other show in any other theatre.
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 18, 2024 11:50:27 GMT
In general I just did not feel that there was any depth to anything- even the serious parts were so disconnected and mixed with the unhinged elements (the smoke machine, the ventriloquist, the magic tricks) that I am started wondering if this was all a big joke. In general the adaptation is very close to the original in terms of the characters and plot and the scenes and so on. It is updated of course but even things like the business with the vapes is there in the original but with cigars. The only major addition, beyond bits of staging, are the songs. In a conventional production the hardest character to carry off is Charlotta and the magic trick stuff is in the original, it is hard to make any sense of that character - I thought here actually that was quite well done mainly because the rest of the production followed her lead and was equally odd. The central focus of conventional production is the Lopakhin/Varya relationship, it's why actors like Simon Russell-Beale get mis-cast as Lopakhin, but here that was totally thrown away, it was hard to believe they were anything other than strangers to each other. The first production of this play I saw was excellent and I rated the play highly but subsequently I've come to see it as the least good of the four great Chekhov plays. Thank you for explaining- I never would have guessed that Lopakhin and Varya are usually the central focus. I actually didn't get what Akhtar did/said to her at the end when she was laying on top of the carpet. But I had long since stopped caring at that point, I just wanted the whole thing to end and go home.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 18, 2024 11:53:59 GMT
I think - aside from the criticisms I've already made - this is a particularly confusing production for those new to The Cherry Orchard. It really feels like a case of The Emperor's New Clothes to me. It's the only time I've left a theatre feeling duped, I actually wrote to the Donmar to complain about the production, I've never done that before for any other show in any other theatre. Did you ? Ha ha. Well done. Do let us know what (if anything) they say. I did wonder whether those new to the play would know who the characters were and what was going on. It was my 8th production of it so I just about knew but not necessarily from what was presented on stage.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 18, 2024 11:57:27 GMT
Thank you for explaining- I never would have guessed that Lopakhin and Varya are usually the central focus. I actually didn't get what Akhtar did/said to her at the end when she was laying on top of the carpet. But I had long since stopped caring at that point, I just wanted the whole thing to end and go home. One time Kenneth Branagh had the brilliant idea of staging all four of the great Chekhov plays in rep with a single company. Sadly it never happened but Lopakhin/Varya would of course have been played by the same actors as Astrov/Sonya in Uncle Vanya - many parallels.
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 18, 2024 12:11:43 GMT
Thank you for explaining- I never would have guessed that Lopakhin and Varya are usually the central focus. I actually didn't get what Akhtar did/said to her at the end when she was laying on top of the carpet. But I had long since stopped caring at that point, I just wanted the whole thing to end and go home. One time Kenneth Branagh had the brilliant idea of staging all four of the great Chekhov plays in rep with a single company. Sadly it never happened but Lopakhin/Varya would of course have been played by the same actors as Astrov/Sonya in Uncle Vanya - many parallels. I might (might!) go see another production next time, so I have something to compare but got to say, I much prefer Uncle Vanya to this one. The Seagull (the Jamie LLoyd one) left me cold. Three sisters, I only saw the NT production which was relocated to Nigeria and I quite liked that one. So far I like the Cherry Orchard the least of the 4.
|
|
1,193 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on May 18, 2024 15:24:29 GMT
One time Kenneth Branagh had the brilliant idea of staging all four of the great Chekhov plays in rep with a single company. Sadly it never happened but Lopakhin/Varya would of course have been played by the same actors as Astrov/Sonya in Uncle Vanya - many parallels. I might (might!) go see another production next time, so I have something to compare but got to say, I much prefer Uncle Vanya to this one. The Seagull (the Jamie LLoyd one) left me cold. Three sisters, I only saw the NT production which was relocated to Nigeria and I quite liked that one. So far I like the Cherry Orchard the least of the 4. They are all pretty much the same play
|
|
860 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on May 18, 2024 16:50:03 GMT
It sounds like the sort of production which you leave despairing at the thought that you'll never see straightforward excellently acted, excellently directed production of a classic play again, that everything requires some sort of gimmick or directorial twist. And then something as brilliant as Trevor Nunn's Vanya comes along. Amongst other directors who can be relied on for excellence - does Sam Mendes do classics these days? He's directed The Cherry Orchard twice and Uncle Vanya but not, as far as I am aware, The Seagull or Three Sisters. I'm sure he'd do a good job. Am I correct in thinking that Nicholas Hytner has never directed Chekhov? It's an interesting omission in career as brilliant as his; mind you he was late to Shaw and Ibsen too. I'm sure he'd be an excellent director of Chekhov.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 18, 2024 17:06:09 GMT
It sounds like the sort of production which you leave despairing at the thought that you'll never see straightforward excellently acted, excellently directed production of a classic play again, that everything requires some sort of gimmick or directorial twist. And then something as brilliant as Trevor Nunn's Vanya comes along. Amongst other directors who can be relied on for excellence - does Sam Mendes do classics these days? He's directed The Cherry Orchard twice and Uncle Vanya but not, as far as I am aware, The Seagull or Three Sisters. I'm sure he'd do a good job. Am I correct in thinking that Nicholas Hytner has never directed Chekhov? It's an interesting omission in career as brilliant as his; mind you he was late to Shaw and Ibsen too. I'm sure he'd be an excellent director of Chekhov. When Michael Grandage ran the Donmar (better than any who came after him) his own productions were “straightforward” but his genius was is casting exactly the right actors (his Wild Duck for example). Not sure if he’s directed Chekhov either. I’m not really looking for “straightforward”, just something that illuminates the text - Robert Icke’s Uncle Vanya was updated and modern dress with actors stepping out and addressing the audience directly but all that served the text.
|
|
|
Post by helenfrombath on May 18, 2024 17:08:46 GMT
Thank you for explaining- I never would have guessed that Lopakhin and Varya are usually the central focus. I actually didn't get what Akhtar did/said to her at the end when she was laying on top of the carpet. But I had long since stopped caring at that point, I just wanted the whole thing to end and go home. One time Kenneth Branagh had the brilliant idea of staging all four of the great Chekhov plays in rep with a single company. Sadly it never happened but Lopakhin/Varya would of course have been played by the same actors as Astrov/Sonya in Uncle Vanya - many parallels. I am remembering that The National did three Chekhov plays in rep probably about eight years ago? I remember one was Seagull and the other was Ivanov I think? I can't remember the third one, although I suppose I could easily look it up. I remembering they did share the same set although elements were changed out for some scenes and I believe they shared a cast as well. It was an interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 18, 2024 17:16:30 GMT
One time Kenneth Branagh had the brilliant idea of staging all four of the great Chekhov plays in rep with a single company. Sadly it never happened but Lopakhin/Varya would of course have been played by the same actors as Astrov/Sonya in Uncle Vanya - many parallels. I am remembering that The National did three Chekhov plays in rep probably about eight years ago? I remember one was Seagull and the other was Ivanov I think? I can't remember the third one, although I suppose I could easily look it up. I remembering they did share the same set although elements were changed out for some scenes and I believe they shared a cast as well. It was an interesting idea. Yes. Platonov, Ivanov and Seagull under the banner “Young Chekhov”. Directed by Jonathan Kent. It was a transfer to NT from Chichester. Seagull fitted with those earlier plays but fits with the later ones too because Arkadina and Konstantin appear again in disguise. I enjoyed those despite the involvement of Sir David Hare in the versions.
|
|