Vanya - Andrew Scott one-man show - Richmond & Duke of Yorks

I'm glad you enjoyed it and as you say, Scott is excellent and will only get better, but it wasn't a lack of knowing Uncle Vanya that did it for me. I am a big fan of Chekhov but I thought that was probably the problem. I love a meaty play and that's what I wanted but this, for me, didn't have that at all. There was no depth and although it was an enjoyable play, it didn't captivate me. I did enjoy following which characters he was but I'm sure this will continue to improve.

Do you think it's recoverable? I thought there was still potential but needs a few changes to make it a success, in my opinion.

What did you make of the sound effects??

I do get why people didn't like this (and I rather simplistically said it won't appear to people who don't know Vanya - that's not true, I can see why this will not be some peoples cup of tea) but would argue it's too early to add a star as we saw a dress rehearsal (and this won't be put in front of a paying audience til Thursday)

Are the dress rehearsal tix to try it out? So they may make a few changes. Reading the comments above, ‘you have to concentrate’ and ‘hard work’ I think not for me. Uncle Vanya is a peach of a play though

What's this about a dress rehearsal? I understood I attended a preview last night. It was definitely a paying audience. Wasn't Saturday night the dress?

OH! I've fundamentally misunderstood that this is at a paying audience now - I didn't think it was til Thursday!

Sorry!

Oh no - I am bringing someone to see it tonight. And definitely paid.

I've seen Andrew Scott on stage quite a few times and he's never been bad, so thought this was a pretty safe bet.

A brilliant example of a one-person, multi-character show is Miriam Margolyes' Dickens' Women.

Chekhov hat off, Andrew Scott groupie hat on.

I saw this tonight, and since most of the characters in this play are essentially muted and unhappy, there isn't the typical variety in character types and attitudes that allow a one person show to thrive.

On the other hand, Andrew Scott is typically mesmerising, and creates many entrancing moments, though, for me, they do not add up to a satisfactory whole.

Some spoilers follow. . .

I always liked the line that Chekhov wrote about Vanya feeling like he could have been Schopenhauer in another life. Since Schopenhauer is the leading philosopher of misery and striving (and trying to understand the misery and striving of human existence), it demonstrates that deep down Vanya doesn't equate success with happiness, but simply getting to grips with misery lol.

Simon Stephens changes the line, modernising Alexander, the usurping family patriarch, into a successful filmmaker rather than a writer, and Vanya becomes instead a wannabe "Bresson or Ozu," two ascetic filmmakers who want to understand humanity, for sure, but more by way of stylistics than content.

Despite this, it is still Schopenhauer's philosophy of endless human striving that underpins all the characters, and when you've got Scott trying to play the truth of the striving misery of every character, they inevitably bleed into each other.

To distinguish them, Stephens ends up having to end almost every line and address with the name of the character that follows, and this feels tedious.

If you are unfamiliar with the play, it is likely you will not understand the story at all, and will consume the play as a typical Stephens play about alienation, in which you just focus on individual scenes, and compare and contrast them, losing the overall thrust of the plot.

If you are familiar with the play, you will wish you could have seen Scott's emotional vulnerable Vanya playing off other actors, rather than wrapping the ennui of all the other characters into one indivisible morass of misery.

You could argue that the revelation of this production is that we are all essentially the same, but that is inherently undramatic.

There are many mesmerising moments, such as when Scott sings, and when Scott plays "Chopsticks," and when Scott breaks down in tears. But, for me, the project is a noble failure such as you would expect in the life of any true artist, boldly trying to mix things up and not repeat themselves. If the result is the very striving disappointment that Schopenhauer's philosophy predicts for all of us, that's pretty Chekhovian, when it comes down to it.

2 and a half stars from me.

I intensely disliked that one too, but I was a lone voice.

It's an interesting comparison. Both shows feature(d) a big-name star who it was clear many in the audience were in awe of. My sense at both was that there was a very enthusiastic response from half the audience and polite applause from the rest.

Agreed. They are keeping the bars and the Ambassador Lounge open afterwards, and we stayed for a glass of wine, but hardly anyone else did.