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

Has anyone sat on the benches? How restricted is the view?

I saw this last night and thought it was simply terrific. Impeccably conceived and executed by all involved, Mr Scott plays the comedy beautifully and the tragedy with powerful emotion. It might be a tad confusing if you don't know the play, but if you do - there are great emotional rewards to be had.

Four stars from me. His performance was stupendous, and I absolutely recommend it. (If you’re not v familiar with the story, do bone up in advance). I thought certain characters worked extremely well (Azov, Sonia, and, erm, Maureen and Liam) and others less well. I’m not sure if it’s a commentary on the weakness of Helena/Yelena as a Chekhov character or this production that I thought that she pretty much boiled down to “hot girl” without much nuance. Ivan/Vanya was also lacking in subtlety until second act at least if not the end, I thought; until then, it was difficult to feel his pathos.

Andrew Scott was phenomenal, but I did miss the interactions between actors, especially when everything was going quickly. And I’m afraid any kind of “physical contact” didn’t really work for me, except at the end. But it was a really interesting experiment and an acting tour de force, and I’m v glad I saw it.

Not in the literal sense, but TodayTix has a weekly lottery for £30 a ticket.

Just posted a standing ticket for Vanya today, Sep 30, at 7pm (£23.80), on the notice board.

I managed to see this last night and after giving it some time to settle in, I'm really unsure how to rate this show.

I'd say in terms of Andrew Scott's performance, I would say between 4.5 or 5 stars. Scott is a fabulous actor and his performance of Sonya's big monologue at the end nearly brought a tear to my eye.

But as an adaption of not just 'Uncle Vanya', but of Chekhov as a whole, I'm less positive. Firstly, I found it odd to update the setting from late 19th/early 20th century Russia to, what I can assume is "contemporary" Ireland, just feels odd to me. I've always felt that Chekhov's plays are so distinctly Russian, that changing up the setting takes something away that didn't need to. I'm not saying you can't take a Chekhov play and play around with the setting and time period, as long as there is a legitimate reason for doing so.

This leads me on to my main gripe with the piece, being that in my opinion, Chekhov doesn't really work as a 'one person show'. At first, I thought it would be done in a unique fashion, like the whole events of the play being recounted to us from the perspective of one of the characters, that being either Vanya, Sonya, or even Astrov, or maybe having Scott narrate some moments. But instead, it's just an abridged version of the play, with all the roles and interactions being played out by one single person.

This also relates to an issue I have with the piece, that Andrew Scott doesn't have a 'foil' onstage. What I like about Chekhov is that a lot of the characters in his plays are foils to one another. Using 'Uncle Vanya' as an example, Vanya himself is a foil to the Professor, Sonya is a foil to Yelena (Helena in this version), etc. Even in his other works, foils are used. In 'The Cherry Orchard', Trofimov is a foil to both Lyubov Andreievna and Lopakhin, whilst Lopakhin is also a foil to both Lyubov and Gaev. All these lead to really nice and significant interactions between characters, which really tell us more about them as people. This what is sorely missing in this show. All it is is just Andrew Scott talking to himself. Don't get me wrong, it's still a great performance, but as an adaptation of a classic play, it's really missing that uniquely Chekhov feel.

Loved this. Scott’s unique talent ( hard to pin down, which is the unique quality)  allowed for this to work. He is able to use his voice and physicality to be totally convincing in this performance. I liked the update to Ireland, made a lot of sense. I even liked the bits Chekhov didn’t write. It enhanced the original ( and I’m a purist remember) not losing a syllable of the speeches that count, the ending being one of them. A truly wonderful theatrical experience. Thanks to the tube workers for allowing me to get into town.

I went to the understudy performance on Friday - a lovely treat to sit in the premium front stalls for £10, and a really brilliant afternoon. I thought Victoria Blunt was absolutely wonderful, and her rendition of Sonya’s final monologue nearly brought me to tears. The show itself worked for me as a version of Vanya without ever entirely justifying doing it this way rather than traditionally, except as a showcase for an actor - and I felt, possibly, more patient with that because it was so nice seeing an understudy have the chance to take on this behemoth role to a sold out West End house. I surprised myself with how much I bought the physical scenes between Yelena and Astrov, also. I would love more theatres to do public understudy performances for shows with star casting or very limited runs, and would definitely go if they did!

I saw it a few weeks ago and really liked it, although I think the one-man version of the play tends to highlight the humour but rarely delivers the more emotional parts with the same depth and nuance. The final scene is the obvious exception. And while Scott delivers a fantastic performance, I think Vanya is the character that ends up being a bit short-changed in this incarnation. Still very good.

I read the script before going, to make sure I'd be able to follow the story. I was able to follow everything, but I was very bored by the whole thing and could not wait to get out. 

I disliked the set so much that it distracted me - if you want to have a simple set design, then don't make it busy. I suppose they were going for more abstract, but I was not buying the concept - I guess I just didn't get the vision. 

I liked everything I saw Andrew Scott in, but I could not find enjoyment in this. It was nice to see him acting multiple parts, but they were so many that I could not really get much involved with the story.

Really glad I was able to see the matinee yesterday, just getting in there in time before it ended.

I've seen Andrew on stage before when he did Present Laughter so I was very keen to see him again. I went knowing absolutely nothing about the play which might not have been the best idea - especially where one actor was playing all the roles and it seemed like I could easily lose track of what was happening. But I'm very pleased that actually it was easy to follow, the characters all so different and the way Andrew played them made it obvious when he switched from one to another.

There is no denying that he has charisma to spare while on stage and I can't fault his performance at all. I look forward to whatever he does next theatre wise!

Did the movie version do anything extra (eg subtitles with character names) to signal who the characters, that Andrew Scott was playing at any given time, were, that the theatre audience would not have seen?