|
Post by Jan on Feb 11, 2016 10:43:38 GMT
I actually never realised that Vanya was a diminutive (I suppose I knew the title before I knew about Russian naming), that casts a whole new light on the title. Me too.
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Feb 11, 2016 16:34:09 GMT
I didn't get any strong impression of a time or place, except to find the reference in act 3 to sharia law incongruously modern.
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Feb 11, 2016 17:01:18 GMT
Yes that jolted a bit didn't it? No reason why it should really, since it was all modern, but it did. I also thought the choice of music at one stage (no spoilers) was a little bit self-indulgent. Again no reason why it shouldn't have been picked, but I wonder if it would have been, but for recent events.
None of that spoiled it for me though. It's still very much with me.
|
|
7 posts
|
Post by olly on Feb 12, 2016 10:43:28 GMT
Absolutely loved Oresteia last year in the West End so really looking forward to seeing what Mr. Icke et al. serve up this time. To my shame I've never been to the Almeida so I'm wondering if anyone who has been to this production could let me know just how restricted they think my restricted view tickets will be to the side of row C in the stalls?
(Hello everyone by the way - this is my first post!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 10:47:26 GMT
Depends how deep the current stage set up is. If you're way over to the side and they're using the full depth, you're going to lose the back corner on your side. I last sat way over to the side for Bernarda Alba and there was maybe a quarter of the stage I couldn't see, but it didn't impede my enjoyment of the show any. They wouldn't have sold the seats if they were impossible (the side stalls were originally not on sale at all), but there will be some restriction.
Also, welcome!
|
|
7 posts
|
Post by olly on Feb 12, 2016 10:50:31 GMT
Thanks Baemax!
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Feb 12, 2016 10:50:59 GMT
|
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Feb 12, 2016 10:53:46 GMT
The stage constantly revolves in a circle, so essentially there is no front or side. Row C stalls is a fine view and barely restricted at all. Actually I found it better then the front row as the front row is quite a bit lower than the stage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 13:42:05 GMT
Hmm, can Stasia or any of our other Russian friends on here confirm his take on 'Vanya' being dismissive? Perhaps in this context it is - maybe my understanding of the play is at fault.
But in general, aren't Russian diminutives used by friends and family to denote closeness? When I lived out there as a student I was frequently addressed as 'Laurochka' by my host family and it was most certainly used affectionately, not dismissively! My friend, whose name was far more anglicised, was positively miffed that the family had no diminutive for her...
I'd have thought it would be positively weird if a Russian family addressed each other using first name and patronymic - they'd always use the diminutive, surely?
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Feb 12, 2016 14:14:45 GMT
jeanhunt, from where I am standing being not as brilliant at my own country's traditions as I want to I still reckon as follows: - In the times the play was written (late 19th century) it was quite common to call members of the family in full name - not only if the person is elder than you are, but also the gran could call her grand daughter e.g. Sonya Nikolaevna on the occasion they are not alone in the room/ guests visiting. It was the sign of showing respect and it didn't mean the family members had no affection for each other if they spoke in such official fashion. It didn't affect the kids though, not till they reach certain age. - However, it wasn't uncommon either to use shortened diminutive names (Luba-Lubochka, Sasha-Sashenka, Petya-Petenka, Misha-Mishenka) especially in tet-a-tet conversations to show fondness. In fact there are the whole variety of diminutive versions of a single name in Russian lanuage which I doubt exist elsewhere. Mine has at least 6 if you can believe that The tradition of calling your family nambers by their full name + patronymic was fading out slowly as we moved closer to morden times and now used only for people that are complete strangers to you (or your higher ranked/elder colleagues sometimes, teachers, etc). I gotta admit I haven't read this play nor seen it staged so it's hard to judge on that particular character and why it's been treated like that. Uncle Vanya can also be a playful joky way of addressing him, but only in a kind sort of way, but not dismissive.
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Feb 12, 2016 14:29:02 GMT
I didn't find it dismissive so much as slightly patronising. He's the only one of the men addressed (in the original as well as in this) by the diminutive. His more respected brother Aleksandr doesn't become Sasha, for example, nor does the doctor Mikhail become Misha. Or you could just say that they all call him by his diminutive because they are particularly fond of him. Whatever, he is the only one of the men to be called by his diminutive name, and I imagine that is the point the director is aiming to highlight.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 20:31:06 GMT
Thanks both - makes more sense in the context of the play, then. Though I still reckon it's all a bit unnecessary..!
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Feb 12, 2016 21:30:31 GMT
Thanks for the link Alexandra and the russian name interpretations above, all interesting and informative. It's not a play i'm familiar with and I'll go in with a bit more thoughtfulness now.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Feb 12, 2016 21:31:24 GMT
Absolutely loved Oresteia last year in the West End so really looking forward to seeing what Mr. Icke et al. serve up this time. To my shame I've never been to the Almeida so I'm wondering if anyone who has been to this production could let me know just how restricted they think my restricted view tickets will be to the side of row C in the stalls? (Hello everyone by the way - this is my first post!) Have not yet seen this production but I rather like the restrained side stalls, so far they've been fine for me. Welcome to the board!
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Feb 13, 2016 0:24:27 GMT
Interestingly, the Telegraph sent Dominic Cavendish to Nell Gwynn tonight and the second string to this - he gave it 3 stars. Nevertheless, I've cracked and booked a ticket as it looks such a great cast. Oh, and 5 stars from Time Out.
Edit: Billington also at Nell G. Quite surprised as that's a transfer and I would have thought they would have been more interested in Icke's follow up to his award winner.
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Feb 13, 2016 1:00:55 GMT
Billington was at VANYA tonight ..... !!!!
|
|
115 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Feb 13, 2016 14:54:33 GMT
He was there, but where's his review? Hurry up Billers.
|
|
2 posts
|
Post by eliotrosewater on Feb 13, 2016 18:08:39 GMT
Maybe the typewriter got all jammed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 19:33:21 GMT
You would think
If the Almeida is so stylish
They are stuck up their own arses
That they might install non Tw*t seating
Which is not in pairs
Hardly lavish
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Feb 13, 2016 19:44:40 GMT
huh? since when did the Almeida lay claim to being "lavish"?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 22:54:11 GMT
4 in one week What a load of sh*te this is Cancelled my Almeida donation Sick of this venue Makes me vomit since Goold took over The fact the bastardised "adaptation" runs over 3 hours yet is directed by the same idiot who did the adapting speaks volumes. The arrogance of the Almeida to start it at 19:30 is unbelievable. If anyone thinks that the piles of sh*t offered at this venue are a true Uncle Vanya or Oresteia. Shame on you all. From now on I shall actively avoid anything he is associated with. People think Katie Mitchell is polarising. She is a genius compared to this novice. Such a shame the way theatre is being polluted and diluted and totally shafted in the arse by a new generation of useless idiots tampering with classic plays. Anyone can take a Chanel dress and sh*t on it. It's easy. Maintaining respect for the tailoring and artisan skills over decades and presenting the garment as enduring with universal appeal is quite something else. Also, why do the Almeida programmes say "Official Programme" on the front. Is there some secret black market in fake programmes, such is the prestige of the theatre? ?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 13, 2016 23:38:19 GMT
Foe the benefit of any new readers, parsley does this all the time, if not totally adoring something claiming that it is the worst thing ever (to be swiftly followed by the next worst thing ever a week or two later).
It should perhaps be noted that Robert Icke directed the critically lauded West End transfer of The Oresteia (also adapting), also the critically lauded West End transfer of 1984 now in the US and so on.
The truism that reviews say more about the reviewer than what they review should give people pause, but so rarely does. If nothing else, if someone walks out of four productions in a row, they must make appalling choices.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 23:41:15 GMT
Foe the benefit of any new readers, parsley does this all the time, if not totally adoring something claiming that it is the worst thing ever (to be swiftly followed by the next worst thing ever a week or two later). It should perhaps be noted that Robert Icke directed the critically lauded West End transfer of The Oresteia (also adapting), also the critically lauded West End transfer of 1984 now in the US and so on. The truism that reviews say more about the reviewer than what they review should give people pause, but so rarely does. If nothing else, if someone walks out of four productions in a row, they must make appalling choices. Did not pay for any of them And they weren't my choice I was obliged to attend them
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 23:43:40 GMT
Foe the benefit of any new readers, parsley does this all the time, if not totally adoring something claiming that it is the worst thing ever (to be swiftly followed by the next worst thing ever a week or two later). It should perhaps be noted that Robert Icke directed the critically lauded West End transfer of The Oresteia (also adapting), also the critically lauded West End transfer of 1984 now in the US and so on. The truism that reviews say more about the reviewer than what they review should give people pause, but so rarely does. If nothing else, if someone walks out of four productions in a row, they must make appalling choices. I think we can recall another critically lauded production recently A musical
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 1:07:32 GMT
The thing is though, with the classics like Hamlet and Uncle Vanya and The Oresteia, I don't see why people shouldn't fiddle about with them. Theatre practitioners should always have the freedom to experiment with things, even if these experiments don't work for everyone, and with plays like these, it doesn't matter if one particular translation or reimagining isn't to your taste, because the next production will be along in a matter of months. Along the way you'll learn which particular practitioners don't seem to appeal to you personally, so you can choose to avoid them in the future, but that doesn't automatically mean they're terrible at what they do, especially in the case of Icke whose Oresteia went down particularly well with basically everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 9:16:11 GMT
Baemax, you said exactly what I was about to say! So since I'm here I'll just say that I hate the seating at the Almeida - I ALWAYS share a bench with a shuffler or a jiggler and get bounced around all evening. There much be a better way...
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 14, 2016 14:11:02 GMT
Foe the benefit of any new readers, parsley does this all the time, if not totally adoring something claiming that it is the worst thing ever (to be swiftly followed by the next worst thing ever a week or two later). It should perhaps be noted that Robert Icke directed the critically lauded West End transfer of The Oresteia (also adapting), also the critically lauded West End transfer of 1984 now in the US and so on. The truism that reviews say more about the reviewer than what they review should give people pause, but so rarely does. If nothing else, if someone walks out of four productions in a row, they must make appalling choices. That truism doesn't seem to have given you any pause for thought because in the previous paragraph you have said the productions were "critically lauded" as if that somehow invalidates Parsley's criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 14, 2016 14:21:01 GMT
I agree with you in theory Jan. Of course any of these people could have just got in the car and driven to the nearest city. Which, in fact, some of them do in the play (in the original too I mean - not in a car, but they leave). But the others are trapped by their temperament, character and situation more than by their location. It doesn't seem to lose that sense of entrapment in the playing, here. I see Billington agrees with me that the actual geographical setting IS important in this play. What a brilliant critic he is.
|
|
115 posts
|
Post by alexandra on Feb 14, 2016 15:50:34 GMT
Yes he is, and I see he loved it. He's just wrong about this one point is all. Nobody's perfect.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 14, 2016 16:49:41 GMT
Foe the benefit of any new readers, parsley does this all the time, if not totally adoring something claiming that it is the worst thing ever (to be swiftly followed by the next worst thing ever a week or two later). It should perhaps be noted that Robert Icke directed the critically lauded West End transfer of The Oresteia (also adapting), also the critically lauded West End transfer of 1984 now in the US and so on. The truism that reviews say more about the reviewer than what they review should give people pause, but so rarely does. If nothing else, if someone walks out of four productions in a row, they must make appalling choices. That truism doesn't seem to have given you any pause for thought because in the previous paragraph you have said the productions were "critically lauded" as if that somehow invalidates Parsley's criticism. It isn't the judgement of the reviewer that is the 'truism' but how they try and justify it. The latest first stringer on the Times for example who is trying desperately to be controversial (or Billington who manages to squeeze most things back to his politics (and Letts similarly, c.f his appropriation of Matilda as a battlecry for literacy!). Someone stating again and again about how they didn't stay for the second half and that succeeding productions (whatever they are) are the worst ever becomes the point, instead of the show itself.
|
|