2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 7, 2018 14:57:41 GMT
An excellent re-imagining was the Out of Joint African set version, with suggestions of Idi Amin and his links to Scotland, the Goold/Stewart one was also well done.
Thanks, Cardinal Pirelli, but I really do not want a re-imagining. Here is what I wrote about the Patrick Stewart version: "I have to say however that Patrick Stewart gave a formidable performance, with lots of big scale ’acting’ that was both realistic and theatrical, and he was very successful with the set pieces. But I thought that the play was over-produced, with too many sound effects and things like electronic echo on the voices, some of which were obviously amplified beyond what should have been necessary. And of course that damned service lift was particularly irritating: ‘Remember to close both doors securely before beginning your journey’, especially during a battle scene! But worse than the over-production was the fact that it was over-directed, with most of the cast hectoring and shouting even when the dramatic situations didn’t need such histrionics. For me, the lowest point in this respect was the completely over-the-top porter scene, which worked perfectly in the Open Air Theatre production in Regent’s Park earlier in the year when it was played in a straightforward way (and got a lot of laughs) but last night just seemed ludicrously affected and did not work as the comic relief after the murder of Duncan that Shakespeare obviously meant it to provide. And although it was a clever idea to present the witches as three nurses, this meant that a lot of what Shakespeare actually wrote had to be glossed over, so for example the brewing of the potion and the recital of the ingredients that went into the cauldron (alas, no cauldron and no brew last night) was done as a rap in which the words were all but unintelligible. And bringing three dead bodies in bodybags to life didn’t quite seem to be what Shakespeare had in mind for the apparition scene!" Sorry that this is getting away from the current NT production, but I am just suggesting that I would like to see a well-acted but straightforward version of the basic play.
I'm not sure what you man by straightforward, Tony. The Goold one's performances were probably more akin to those that Shakespeare's audience would have expected with a very heightened sense of reality. The African one I mentioned had very low key conversational performances as a contrast. I imagine the latter is what most audiences would think of as straightforward, given our love affair with realism, but that's a style that is very much an imposed contemporary one.
Or is just 'overdesign' and you would have preferred the basic black, grey and white Anthony Sher one?
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Mar 7, 2018 17:59:44 GMT
Running time Magically reduced From 2h 55 To 2h 30 includes interval Am going to see the whole Thing ton9ight 😒 Most interested to hear what you think, is it wrong to hope you don't like it as car crash as this sounds we could hit whole new levels of @parsley scorn.
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Mar 7, 2018 19:06:35 GMT
I'm not sure what you man by straightforward, Tony. The Goold one's performances were probably more akin to those that Shakespeare's audience would have expected with a very heightened sense of reality. The African one I mentioned had very low key conversational performances as a contrast. I imagine the latter is what most audiences would think of as straightforward, given our love affair with realism, but that's a style that is very much an imposed contemporary one.
Or is just 'overdesign' and you would have preferred the basic black, grey and white Anthony Sher one? I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly. I studied 'Macbeth' at school with a brilliant English teacher and I suppose by 'straightforward' I just want to see the play with good actors who can bring out all the richness, power and drama that is in the text and presented in the period in which it is originally set without any directorial changes. The play opens with three witches on a deserted heath with thunder and lightning, which to Shakespeare's audience would have meant three ugly old women outdoors in a storm, not three smartly dressed nurses in an operating theatre in an abandoned hospital or anything other than three ugly old women out in a storm...and so on. But I also understand that in this day and age every new production of this play (and every other Shakespeare play) has to have some new twist or re-imagining so as not to be considered old hat. It's just the same at the opera, but let's not go there!
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by tonyloco on Mar 7, 2018 19:18:18 GMT
I think that would be called a reading not a theatre production! All productions involve making choices about what you think the play is saying, what the characters are, want, feel, mean, etc, and then how you want to present it as a coherent narrative. For eg, you say 'just some subtle lighting' - but what lighting? What mood are you trying to convey? Because it's hard to do something that won't have any meaning or effect. There's no such thing as just presenting the play. But what about all the stage directions that appear in the early versions of the text as first published that are invariably ignored or changed in 'reimagined' productions? Can we not have the play staged in a way that presents or at least represents them? As I said in an earlier post: I just want to see the play with good actors who can bring out all the richness, power and drama that is in the text and presented in the period in which it is originally set without any directorial changes. The play opens with three witches on a deserted heath with thunder and lightning, which to Shakespeare's audience would have meant three ugly old women outdoors in a storm, not three smartly dressed nurses in an operating theatre in an abandoned hospital or anything other than three ugly old women out in a storm...and so on. Would such a production not be possible? It might actually be billed as 'Shakespeare's Macbeth'!
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 7, 2018 20:10:07 GMT
I'm not sure what you man by straightforward, Tony. The Goold one's performances were probably more akin to those that Shakespeare's audience would have expected with a very heightened sense of reality. The African one I mentioned had very low key conversational performances as a contrast. I imagine the latter is what most audiences would think of as straightforward, given our love affair with realism, but that's a style that is very much an imposed contemporary one.
Or is just 'overdesign' and you would have preferred the basic black, grey and white Anthony Sher one? I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly. I studied 'Macbeth' at school with a brilliant English teacher and I suppose by 'straightforward' I just want to see the play with good actors who can bring out all the richness, power and drama that is in the text and presented in the period in which it is originally set without any directorial changes. The play opens with three witches on a deserted heath with thunder and lightning, which to Shakespeare's audience would have meant three ugly old women outdoors in a storm, not three smartly dressed nurses in an operating theatre in an abandoned hospital or anything other than three ugly old women out in a storm...and so on. But I also understand that in this day and age every new production of this play (and every other Shakespeare play) has to have some new twist or re-imagining so as not to be considered old hat. It's just the same at the opera, but let's not go there! Straightforward isn’t as straightforward as that! Firstly the lines you quote are not necessarily original, they are plausibly ones added later by Thomas Middleton (scholars find that there’s even better evidence for his interpolating the Hecate scene). What we have is likely a version that was edited later from Shakespeare’s original. What are witches anyway? Weird Sisters gives us something but to give the same effect as in Shakespeare’s day we have to find a workable image of fear, we don’t believe the way they did so to us they are not as they should be. Then there is the idea of what period it should be in, the original performance would have used Elizabethan costumes but the characters used are from earlier than that so historical is out of the window (some might imagine tartan kilts but they are completely inappropriate and a more modern addition). Then the text - this is just a starting point, it isn’t really the story of a historical Macbeth, it is a fiction that is as much to do with tickling the King’s Scottish fancy (with added supernatural spice given his fascination with witchcraft). It’s the same with most of Shakespeare’s plays, the history isn’t the point. Given that then there is no real vanilla version of the play that exists without interpretations and additions and that Shakespeare expected contemporaneity rather than something from the past, the most Shakesperean versions we have is quite likely to be something akin to Goold’s.
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Mar 7, 2018 21:59:08 GMT
A very interesting subject about what a director does - I think his role is to bring out the layers and meanings of the play to us, an audience in 2018, and it makes total sense to me to have three nurses on the battlefield - we are in a war, and they would be tending the wounded. But even if they were children or puppets, both of which I have seen, they are metaphors. They are a device for the seeds in Macbeth's psyche to germinate. They are The Mousetrap, or the woods in the dream, or Hamlet's Ghost - artificial things that bring the audience up to date and allow another layer to comment on the plot, usually truthfully. but yes I do enjoy traditional productions as well, and some plays suit reinvention more than others. I'd be disappointed to see a period Twelfth Night now, but more a play that brings out its' inherent celebration of bisexuality. I enjoy the artifice of theatre, not the slavish copy of reality, and whatever it takes for me to know and understand those wonderful characters and their dilemmas is alright by me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 22:26:58 GMT
After sitting through this tonight
What is clear to me Is that Rufus Norris has no shame No respect for his audiences And a complete lack of any insight How he can sleep at night and think he is capable as director at the NT Amazes me
Just watch his bullsh*t in the video feature on the NT website Talking about natural disasters and nature turning against us.... WTF and where did he utilise that in his show??
He is not worthy to wipe Shakespeare’s arse Let alone hold his play in his hands
It was like sh*tting out a whole packet of Drawing pins Swallowed whilst being severely constipated
The acting will go down as some of the worst at the NT
As they are too busy ticking the diversity boxes The actual presence of any acting ability is now secondary
The mixture of regional accents can be harnessed in a show Here it comes across as a community hall affair
It’s only when you see some of the RSC shows
That you see how the minor roles Which can be taken for granted Are actually so important
Kinnear and Duff are stranded amidst the mess and neither is a strong enough actor to be able to rise above it Duff makes one awful career choice after another Kinnear does his same strained acting and I have never rated him as stage presence anyway The set design is ugly And whilst it could be utilitarian It just looks cheap
There is no concept of time Setting Location
Yet due to the awful costumes And set Neither do we feel It’s other worldly
The direction...
There is none People running about
Lack of any sort of blocking Thought process
It’s the worst Macbeth And the worst professional Shakespeare I have ever seen
There is no concept No coherent play
Nothing
So many people ran for it at the interval Was noticeable in the auditorium
The irony is As Rufus Norris Has no insight And no shame And can’t even present a basic staging He won’t be able to appreciate the upset and distress he causes Offering up such excrement
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Mar 7, 2018 22:29:08 GMT
Tweets from Ann Treneman ("I havent held back") and Nancy Durrant ("I have Strong Views...you have been warned") sound ominous! Reviews embargoed until midnight.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 22:32:21 GMT
Tweets from Ann Treneman ("I havent held back") and Nancy Durrant ("I have Strong Views...you have been warned") sound ominous! Reviews embargoed until midnight. Interspersed with retweets of a Rory Kinnear interview headlined 'it doesn't get better than this'... I feel guilty about looking forward to the reviews!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 22:58:27 GMT
Running time Magically reduced From 2h 55 To 2h 30 includes interval Am going to see the whole Thing tonight 😒 Reduced just in time for Press Night. Please let us know the actual running time once you've seen it. The National have a tendency to stating imaginary running times for their less great (and long) productions to lure us in! It was exactly 2h 30
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Mar 7, 2018 23:01:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 23:06:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 7, 2018 23:06:33 GMT
Wow - she didn't hold back...
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Mar 7, 2018 23:09:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 23:19:11 GMT
Wow these reviews are certainly something. You would wonder wow can you mess up Macbeth, but it seems we have found out. Personally I think some the reviews are a bit harsh as in my opinion it was not like any if the performances were terrible and excruciating , all just alright. This does not bode well for the tour , wonder if they might scrap it?
If I'm honest my favourite part if the show was the cardboard box and that really does tell you something about the show.
atleast this will probably be a production that is talked about in the future and for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 23:25:48 GMT
It's easy to mess up Macbeth. People take it for granted and don't try, or they take a gamble that wasn't worth taking. Same with Midsummer. I know you should be able to "trust the text" but it's still just the text, you still need a solid and cohesive production to back it up. The Shakespeare play least likely to be messed up in my experience is Shrew, because it is so much messier on the page that you do have to put the extra effort in, and 9 times out of 10 that effort pays off.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 23:42:08 GMT
It's easy to mess up Macbeth. People take it for granted and don't try, or they take a gamble that wasn't worth taking. Same with Midsummer. I know you should be able to "trust the text" but it's still just the text, you still need a solid and cohesive production to back it up. The Shakespeare play least likely to be messed up in my experience is Shrew, because it is so much messier on the page that you do have to put the extra effort in, and 9 times out of 10 that effort pays off. It’s not easy to sh*t it up As badly as Norris has done
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Mar 7, 2018 23:45:29 GMT
And they have got a year of this to look forward to......this does not sound an uncluttered Macbeth.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 7, 2018 23:48:02 GMT
There’s a very good reason why the play is linked to bad things happening and with so many superstitions around it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 23:49:22 GMT
And they have got a year of this to look forward to......this does not sound an uncluttered Macbeth. If I was in the play I would leave Pull a sickie I could not imagine being so desperate for work That I would appear in it The grossest insult That it is going on tour Rufus Norris Must be so proud To be showing this off around the country Thank goodness the RSC staging will be coming to Barbican
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Mar 7, 2018 23:59:25 GMT
Well, from being completely "sold out" according to the NT website BEFORE this opened there seem to be tickets available for all performances AFTER it's opened. The box office has clearly been busy ....with returns!
What a disaster....It's been a while since I have seen such unanimously poor reviews!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 0:01:22 GMT
one star WOS
two stars Guardian Telegraph The stage The upcoming Broadway world
“Muddled and ugly” “Is this a dud which I see before me?” “Underpowered” “Misses the poetry”
Part of me thinks The NT should have the arts subsidy taken away
Until the AD has had a good long think
I pity the poor people who have paid £50 For this
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Mar 8, 2018 0:04:57 GMT
I pity the poor actors having to do this night after night after night. It's going to be long few months......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 0:11:58 GMT
I pity the poor actors having to do this night after night after night. It's going to be long few months...... They can leave if they really want No one should have to stay in such a sh*t job I am sure the run will be curtailed And it’s difficult to see the tour going ahead really
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 0:18:10 GMT
one star WOS two stars Guardian Telegraph The stage The upcoming Broadway world “Muddled and ugly” “Is this a dud which I see before me?” “Underpowered” “Misses the poetry” Part of me thinks The NT should have the arts subsidy taken away Until the AD has had a good long think I pity the poor people who have paid £50 For this The times 2 stars We are just waiting for The Independant and FT Some of the press comments I heard this evening Were brutal I am not sure how Norris will show his face anywhere at the NT for weeks
|
|
|
Post by underthestudy on Mar 8, 2018 0:19:34 GMT
I pity parsley's keyboard. It thinks it is an expert so writes in a quasi verse style.
This prod is obviously on the rocks early on, but the delight some posters take in its deemed failure is beyond childish.
Anyway. My first post.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 8, 2018 0:29:13 GMT
|
|
108 posts
|
Post by bob2010 on Mar 8, 2018 0:34:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 0:41:14 GMT
I pity parsley's keyboard. It thinks it is an expert so writes in a quasi verse style. This prod is obviously on the rocks early on, but the delight some posters take in its deemed failure is beyond childish. Anyway. My first post. Not really Rufus Norris needs to be able to take the criticism Have you seen the production? I doubt it He is the AD of the place And needs putting in his lowly place He is directing this A much heralded and advertised Well known play And he f***ed it up And we all knew he would He had all the resources and help he could have wanted at his disposal What does that tell you? He is just incapable and incompetent What’s not to enjoy?? Apparently it was 10 years in the making Him directing Macbeth 😂😂😂😂 I give enough money to the NT And their gob is always wide open Even that’s not enough They always want more Why shouldn’t I have my Say?? The production is an insult To my intelligence and senses In fact to anyone who values theatre of quality and decency And the perpetrator should be named He is a disgrace to call himself A director Let alone be in charge of anything
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 8, 2018 0:42:03 GMT
I returned my expensive ticket for a £15 one a few days ago - there were a few front £15's popping up. I've already booked my train tickets but the date is a while off yet - it may improve, or I might swap for Absolute Hell if a reasonably priced ticket for that pops up and reviews are good.
|
|