|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 20, 2016 9:48:47 GMT
Have to agree with Lynette, this left me pretty cold whilst I bounced out of the NT version. I so wanted to like it but it did seem rather lost, not sure what it was about and actors who are normally utterly reliable to be good didn't seem to be quite working. As a character I wasn't convinced that all these woman would be throwing themselves at Platonov, if anything having seen the NT's Ivanov he seemed to have more echoes of that. Can anyone better informed throw any light on the ending, I know that it was an unfinished play but is the ending unwritten, unclear, hence the different interpretations. I couldn't tell from this one if he was meant to be running to or from destruction. Jan Brock I did enjoy staring at the front stalls wondering which was you, I assume you were none of the following people, audience members breaking part of the circle rail and trying to fix it in a very quiet scene, the man talking loudly with the usher re inaudibility, audience members talking loudly between and into scenes, the woman who gave me a mince pie? Oh was it a breaking circle rail ? I wondered what it was, I assumed it was a departing audience member with poor walking stick control. No, I wasn't any of those, also I wasn't any of the multitude in the front stalls coughing like it was a TB ward in 1916. Didn't spot you unless you were the lady nonchalantly steadying herself against the box office during the interval. |
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 20, 2016 11:03:49 GMT
Can anyone better informed throw any light on the ending, I know that it was an unfinished play but is the ending unwritten, unclear, hence the different interpretations. I couldn't tell from this one if he was meant to be running to or from destruction. peggs, the ending is pretty obvious in the original version of the play by Chekhov I've read and no sights of it being unwritten, only raw and a bit wobbly but we can forgive that considering he was only 18 (yes, 18, that's right, I wonder why every single bit of info in English says he was 20). Never came across Wild Honey interpretation though.. |
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 20, 2016 11:42:13 GMT
So what is in the original ending? The NT had him being shot and killed by accident and then a lovely 'mourning scene' with a few ends tied up and the money thing was clearer at the NT with the doctor begging for money from his father and a reconciliation between the old guy with the money and his son, both going to Paris. Am I right, have I remembered it ok? Not broken out the Baileys yet but you know, time of the year. The liqueur chocs already gone.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Dec 20, 2016 12:52:33 GMT
In the original it ends rather abruptly - the last scene is Platonov's dying and everyone's gathering round, all sighs and omgs, trying to pretend it was God who stroke Platonov for him being a judger of others and a drunk.. But it wasn't an accident alright. Sofia (no matter how hysterical she was - she knew what she was doing) fires twice - first time she misses and then Grekova stands between her and Platonov trying to protect him but fails. Anna Petrovna could not quite believe he's gone. Seems she was the only one who realised a great potential went to waste in him.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Dec 20, 2016 19:05:49 GMT
I thought that too but according to my neighbours it was a bit of accidental circle breaking. Well I was leaning against a pillar in the interval downstairs but I doubt I'd have pulled off nonchalant. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 22:36:20 GMT
Is Kolya meant to fall over when he comes through the door in the final scene? Judging by Anna Petrovna's reaction tonight I'd say no, but the whole ending was so weird and unexpected maybe it was intentional...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 10:40:28 GMT
Well. I don't quite know if it was because I was tanked up on mince pies and sloe gin or just didn't read the programme properly but I didn't realise that it's pretty much the same bloomin' play as the one at the NT recently just with a different title. Sneaky.
Anyhoo. Is it a requirement that all Chekhov plays have to have a lot of trees on stage? Do they use the same trees and just move them from production to production?
Play was entertaining enough. Think I preferred the NT one though. Geoffrey Streatfeild was delightful. He's not the obvious local lothario but he does manage to convince otherwise through sheer force of personality. However, I wouldn't have let him grow his hair. It's a bit, shall we say, thin.
Lovely performance from Joe Bannister as Sergey too.
Funny ending though. Not funny haha but funny odd. Audience started clapping because they thought it had ended and then there was another quick bit at the end. They didn't know whether to clap or not after that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 11:58:29 GMT
Were you there last night too, Ryan?
Agree about the ending. Personally I was surprised when people started clapping after the train bit, because I was thinking, 'Well that's not how the story ends'... but then it transpired that was how this story ended. Which threw me a bit for curtain call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 12:11:04 GMT
Were you there last night too, Ryan? Agree about the ending. Personally I was surprised when people started clapping after the train bit, because I was thinking, 'Well that's not how the story ends'... but then it transpired that was how this story ended. Which threw me a bit for curtain call. No, I was there on NYE. Just now coming out of my sloe gin stupor to post more camp old nonsense for 2017!  The ending is very strange. I think it's because the lights fade after the main scene so it seems like the end, hence some applause, and then, oops, we actually get another bit that lasts for like 10 seconds before the lights fade again. It's like the audience are thinking "Ha, you aren't going to fool us a second time Mr Director". |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 4, 2017 12:33:30 GMT
Well. I don't quite know if it was because I was tanked up on mince pies and sloe gin or just didn't read the programme properly but I didn't realise that it's pretty much the same bloomin' play as the one at the NT recently just with a different title. Sneaky. Anyhoo. Is it a requirement that all Chekhov plays have to have a lot of trees on stage? Do they use the same trees and just move them from production to production? Play was entertaining enough. Think I preferred the NT one though. Geoffrey Streatfeild was delightful. He's not the obvious local lothario but he does manage to convince otherwise through sheer force of personality. However, I wouldn't have let him grow his hair. It's a bit, shall we say, thin. Lovely performance from Joe Bannister as Sergey too. Funny ending though. Not funny haha but funny odd. Audience started clapping because they thought it had ended and then there was another quick bit at the end. They didn't know whether to clap or not after that. Ryan you do make me laugh!
Yes must have trees.
I agree re Geoffrey Streatfeild's hair, from the bank of the circle I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to establish if there was a bald spot to spot.
Having had a while to digest this production and having read a few reviews which suggested they were trying to do slightly different things and therefore I shouldn't just simply compare them I decided I liked this better than I originally thought, how could I not like Geoffrey?!
My audience was similarly confused by ending, clapped early and then didn't for what seemed a long time as we waited to see if it had really finished.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jan 5, 2017 0:09:14 GMT
No confusion at the ending tonight but uncertainty of tone is definitely a problem for this play. We had Tom Attenborough reading in as the Colonel (announcement beforehand that the original actor had been taken to hospital but was ok) and that added to the general muddle, I think. But Geoffrey Streatfeild is adorable and I didn't see the NT version so overall was glad I saw this.
I like Hampstead as a theatre but agree with the comment further up this thread that the seats are hideously uncomfortable.
My pre-visit email from Hampstead contained the line "You might also like: Sex with Strangers". Bit presumptuous, I thought...
|
|
3,470 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 14, 2017 23:13:02 GMT
Saw the matinee today and though this has been mentioned above, I was still surprised by how farcical and funny this turned out to be after the interval - definitely a play of two halves in that respect. Not speaking Russian, I had also not realised that "Platonov" is pronounced "Platornov" - glad I hadn't had to say it aloud for any reason!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 9:27:05 GMT
I studied Russian and as far as I know, it's 'PlatOnov'. I wouldn't put much faith in their Russian pronunciation - Streatfeild appeared to be the only one attempting authenticity on the night I went! And the less said about everyone's 'Gerasim Kuzmich' efforts, the better...
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 16, 2017 11:53:52 GMT
Haha you are dead right, jean! 
Saw this on Saturday night. Well, it appeared to be only half Platonov and half something else entirely. The play has not only been restructured plot wise, it has been set to explore the whole new territory of combining high farce with straightforward drama, in some bits more successful than others. In my dream I would combine this with NT's version which blossomed in irresistible youthful charm leaving a little room for seriousness. When Wild Honey's Misha tells Anna Petrovna 'trust me, it isn't worth it' referring to their possible future together he actually means it. The way he is struck by Sophia's appearance like she is a ghost of a long-forgotten life which triggers the restlessness in him, the thought of missed opportunities that cracks something solid within, opens up wounds he thinks he can heal with reckless desires and takes him on a very dangerous path. But then again the next second it would drop to farce and then back again and there are moments you don't know what to think of it. The prominence of As You Like It style running around the woods and bumping into the wrong person multiply times helps the entertainment and reflects general confusion of almost every character involved.
I guess the fact that the production was orphaned with the sudden death of the great Howard Davies didn't help its consistency but funnily enough at times it seems more centered than the original play with some motivations clearer and probably more logical even though surprising finale (perfect irony of allusion to Platonov unconsciously running towards distruction) but what it lacks is that effortless chaos of a hot summer night which has equal chance to either end it tears or conjure up hope for a happy day ahead.
{Spoiler - click to view}
The argument I had with my friend (who was there on the different night) is abouth whether Platonov was killing himself or was killed buy accident. For me it's clearly the latter but she said he was hesitating before jumping under the train (which he wasn't on the night I went - he just jumped and got caught on the rail). What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 13:16:04 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
To reply to rumbledoll's 'spoiler' question - the night I went, it seemed Platonov was running towards the train but at the last minute put his hands up in front of him and leaned his body back, away from it.
I quite like the ambiguity of this. Was he running away blindly, stumbled across the railway track, and it was only when the train was upon him that he came to his senses and realised, too late, where he'd run? Or was he intent on suicide and that last movement was simply a natural instinct to impending impact? My feeling was the latter, but I'd be perfectly open to being persuaded it was the former! |
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 16, 2017 13:29:06 GMT
Thanks, jean! I loved the ambifuity too. And strangely it somewhat makes more sense than Sonya killing him (original ending). THIS Sonya certainly won't do such a thing. She was not a bit that hysterical as in the text or Chichester version. But she changed her mind so quickly (from "Why are you talking about the past?" to "Let's run away for good!") it wasn't very concincing to me.
I also like that in here you can cleary see that moment that triggers Platonov's hectic behaviour and thows him off balance as before Sonya's arrival he seems quite content with what he's got. It's all about making accents on the certain moments of the play I guess.
What I didn't get is how come that railway track runs so close to both Platonov's home and school he teachs in? (School especially)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 15:36:48 GMT
What I didn't get is how come that railway track runs so close to both Platonov's home and school he teachs in? (School especially) Yes, I think that was clearer in the NT version - where it seemed to me they had the school back onto Platonov's house...? |
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 16, 2017 18:27:51 GMT
Yes, in NT version (just like the original text) the last scene happens back in Platonov's house (since servants are also present) but it doesn't really matter since the train is not featured in the finale anyway.
It's just the idea.. that a child can walk out of a school right into the railway track. Ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Jan 16, 2017 18:33:01 GMT
The "NT version" is in fact the Chichester Festival Theatre production.
The "Hampstead version" is in fact the NT version originally produced in the Lyttelton with Ian McKellen.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 16, 2017 19:29:42 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
To reply to rumbledoll's 'spoiler' question - the night I went, it seemed Platonov was running towards the train but at the last minute put his hands up in front of him and leaned his body back, away from it.
I quite like the ambiguity of this. Was he running away blindly, stumbled across the railway track, and it was only when the train was upon him that he came to his senses and realised, too late, where he'd run? Or was he intent on suicide and that last movement was simply a natural instinct to impending impact? My feeling was the latter, but I'd be perfectly open to being persuaded it was the former! {Spoiler - click to view}
The night I went he sort of jumped out onto the track, paused and then turned around, so I was confused as to whether he was intentionally killing himself or not. Completely missed the reason for the change in his character as Sofya arrival but interesting thought. |
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 16, 2017 20:26:17 GMT
peggs, about Sonya's arrival. She was frank enough to point out that once she thought he's up for greatness but for no good reason given up on his attempt to make the world better and settle as a regular scholar. I think that hurt her in some way as she thought he would be resposible for whatever was within him - this flame, passion to do somethin extraordinary. In turn, it hurt him as well as he suddendly realised he indeed achieved nothing but criticising around. That makes him take a hard look on himself and he doesn't like what he sees. Originally we meet him in this state of mind from a very beginning of the play. Here it was done differently and on purpose I should think.
And thanks for adding up on finale interpretation. Now I regret I haven't asked Geoffrey after what the intention of his charater was. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Jan 16, 2017 22:00:33 GMT
Yes I do remember that frankness, I think I was rather watching thinking this is different rather than allowing for a different interpretation, but what you say Rumbledoll makes sense and adds to my experience so thanks.
|
|
