276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by lt on May 3, 2024 12:01:01 GMT
2 stars from The Times:
"This is the kind of waddling ideas-heavy interpretation (with "f***wit" as the standard insult) that may well seem endlessly fascinating in the rehearsal room but dissolves into confusion on the stage".
"Here as the orchard faces destruction, the actors tear up the rugs. If only they could have done the same to the script".
So negative/lukewarm reviews just edge ahead at 4-3!
|
|
208 posts
|
Post by argon on May 3, 2024 12:41:50 GMT
2 Stars downgraded from 2.5 Stars for the very reason {Spoiler - click to view}
The Conga line, the invariable hue/lux (why), the football kickabout ( just bizarre & went on far too long) and yes audience participation ( in a chekhov play?)
The Young Vic version had issues but I didn't find it boring like I found this.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamkinsey on May 3, 2024 13:04:46 GMT
I can't take Andrzej Lukowski seriously as a critic. He's often such a strong voice totally at odds with almost everyone else you just scratch your head trying to work out what he sees that almost no one else does.
He also uses principle instead of principal in that latest review, which is the worst sin of all.
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 3, 2024 15:29:52 GMT
I'm not very intrigued by this, I'm seeing it in 2 weeks. Timeout 5 stars makes me feel better but I am worried at the 2 stars!!
|
|
|
|
Post by asfound on May 3, 2024 18:07:03 GMT
I can't take Andrzej Lukowski seriously as a critic. He's often such a strong voice totally at odds with almost everyone else you just scratch your head trying to work out what he sees that almost no one else does. He also uses principle instead of principal in that latest review, which is the worst sin of all. Does anybody take any Time Out critics seriously though? I thought it was fairly well known they operate on a favours/access for positive reviews basis. Their reviews are more advertorials than genuine opinion pieces. But even way back when people used to pick up paper copies to read on the tube, you could tell the writers were bottom of the barrel - it's all badly written, no context or knowledge, no real insight, obsessed with US politics, more concerned with optics than anything else - and that goes for the theatre, film, restaurant, and especially art sections. |
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 3, 2024 18:22:16 GMT
I can't take Andrzej Lukowski seriously as a critic. He's often such a strong voice totally at odds with almost everyone else you just scratch your head trying to work out what he sees that almost no one else does. He also uses principle instead of principal in that latest review, which is the worst sin of all. Does anybody take any Time Out critics seriously though? I thought it was fairly well known they operate on a favours/access for positive reviews basis. Their reviews are more advertorials than genuine opinion pieces. But even way back when people used to pick up paper copies to read on the tube, you could tell the writers were bottom of the barrel - it's all badly written, no context or knowledge, no real insight, obsessed with US politics, more concerned with optics than anything else - and that goes for the theatre, film, restaurant, and especially art sections. I like his reviews and often agree with his comments...but then I'm no expert by a long stretch |
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on May 3, 2024 22:31:17 GMT
Well I had booked a front row seat for this to see it next month (mainly for the presence of Nina Hoss in the cast) but have been emailed today to tell me that I will no longer be in the front tie but will be in BB instead with ‘an unrestricted view’ and with a free programme but to tell the truth, I might just say I want a credit after reading the less than glowing reviews on here, but I haven’t seen anything at the Donmar since Saint Joan in 2016 (🫤, had to Google when it was): will it be another 7 years before they put anything on to use a credit against?
|
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on May 3, 2024 22:33:09 GMT
I was also reseated in this manner
They made me a thick rich luxurious hot chocolate for my drink
I was sitting next to an actress in a polyester dress
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on May 4, 2024 5:41:31 GMT
Well I had booked a front row seat for this to see it next month (mainly for the presence of Nina Hoss in the cast) but have been emailed today to tell me that I will no longer be in the front tie but will be in BB instead with ‘an unrestricted view’ and with a free programme but to tell the truth, I might just say I want a credit after reading the less than glowing reviews on here, but I haven’t seen anything at the Donmar since Saint Joan in 2016 (🫤, had to Google when it was): will it be another 7 years before they put anything on to use a credit against? Yes exactly the same happened to me 🤣 at least I’m getting a free drink and programme for the inconvenience caused |
|
5,016 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on May 4, 2024 6:18:50 GMT
I was sitting next to an actress in a polyester dress You or the actress ? |
|
276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by lt on May 4, 2024 7:44:06 GMT
I thought Adeel Akhtar Sounded like Alf Garnet Both in terms of expletives, cockney accent And uncontrolled shouting From The Times's review: "There’s certainly not much subtlety in the way that Andrews presents the character of the muck-and-brass merchant Lopakhin. Adeel Akhtar’s effing and blinding wheeler-dealer staggers around with a beer can in his hand and a chunky gold watch on his wrist. You half-expect to see a whippet following him around". |
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on May 4, 2024 7:55:05 GMT
|
|
5,016 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jan on May 4, 2024 8:21:51 GMT
I thought Adeel Akhtar Sounded like Alf Garnet Both in terms of expletives, cockney accent And uncontrolled shouting From The Times's review: "There’s certainly not much subtlety in the way that Andrews presents the character of the muck-and-brass merchant Lopakhin. Adeel Akhtar’s effing and blinding wheeler-dealer staggers around with a beer can in his hand and a chunky gold watch on his wrist. You half-expect to see a whippet following him around". I'm seeing this later in the run but I have seen all the Chekhov plays many times and this is the one that has been least successful and I think because the social structure it depicts and depends on is so remote from our experience. Lopakhin was a peasant in Russia, that effectively means he was a type of slave who could be bought and sold (along with the land he was allowed to live on), but now he has turned the tables. This would have had a big impact on the Russian audience at the time but how to represent that massive gap in social class today ? Often directors haven't even tried, I mean one even cast Simon Russell-Beale as Lopakhin. Given that, this description of him in this production makes it sound like they have at least tried to address this. In the US there have been productions of the play relocated to the Southern states just after the slavery era. This is such an obvious approach I'm surprised it hasn't been done here. |
|
5,177 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on May 4, 2024 9:36:49 GMT
I can't take Andrzej Lukowski seriously as a critic. He's often such a strong voice totally at odds with almost everyone else you just scratch your head trying to work out what he sees that almost no one else does. He also uses principle instead of principal in that latest review, which is the worst sin of all. He's usually the critic I agree with most |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 4, 2024 10:42:51 GMT
Not seeing this for another 10 days though I now find myself wondering if the professional reviews are sliiightly influenced by class orientation.
|
|
1,494 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 4, 2024 17:32:58 GMT
Not seeing this for another 10 days though I now find myself wondering if the professional reviews are sliiightly influenced by class orientation. I wouldn't say class, as you can be very conservative in your basic leanings no matter what "class" you are, and equally you can lean liberal no matter what your class. It is likely that if you have a basically conservative outlook (ie you are more comfortable with what you are already familiar with) versus a more liberal outlook (you are especially open to the adventure of seeing things done in a way you've never seen before), you are more likely to reject what Andrews is doing. Conservative impulses supposedly evolved to keep us safe, so we don't walk off cliffs. Liberal impulses supposedly evolved to achieve an edge via trying new ways of doing things. The worries for the basic outlooks are that some liberals will inevitably fall off cliffs, and some conservatives will be inevitably be left behind. But both impulses are present in varying degrees in everybody as our ancestors survived using both impulses to give birth to us. Some spoilers follow. . . So if when the lights stay on, you feel "that's wrong," then things aren't gonna work out. If you think "ooh, that's interesting," you've a shot at enjoying yourself. If when you hear the word," f--kwit," and you think "that word is disturbing, the translator is impolite," you are on the path to hating this. If you think, "good stuff, sounds like the real world," you might appreciate this. If when an actor addresses an audience member as a piece of furniture, you are angry because "that's not how proper theatre, especially Chekhov, is done," you aren't going to like this. If you laugh, and think, "this is fun, I wonder where this is going," you've a shot at enjoying yourself. These choices of Andrews' will add up, and many more follow, not least being the use of actor-musicians, and if you psychologically align conservative at each and every choice, you will be having an awful time long before the second half payoff comes, and the show will be irredeemable by then. If you are open to to these choices, you might find yourself exhilarated come the denouement. Like I said, being a conservative personality type (and it's all a spectrum anyway - my own immense conservative enjoyment of the cosy "Dear Octopus" period piece was off the charts lol) is a great advantage in many situations, especially related to survival by not taking undue risks, but it will not have been an advantage for any critic who saw this show.  |
|
276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by lt on May 4, 2024 18:43:41 GMT
Not seeing this for another 10 days though I now find myself wondering if the professional reviews are sliiightly influenced by class orientation. I wouldn't say class, as you can be very conservative in your basic leanings no matter what "class" you are, and equally you can lean liberal no matter what your class. It is likely that if you have a basically conservative outlook (ie you are more comfortable with what you are already familiar with) versus a more liberal outlook (you are especially open to the adventure of seeing things done in a way you've never seen before), you are more likely to reject what Andrews is doing. Conservative impulses supposedly evolved to keep us safe, so we don't walk off cliffs. Liberal impulses supposedly evolved to achieve an edge via trying new ways of doing things. The worries for the basic outlooks are that some liberals will inevitably fall off cliffs, and some conservatives will be inevitably be left behind. But both impulses are present in varying degrees in everybody as our ancestors survived using both impulses to give birth to us. Some spoilers follow. . . So if when the lights stay on, you feel "that's wrong," then things aren't gonna work out. If you think "ooh, that's interesting," you've a shot at enjoying yourself. If when you hear the word," f--kwit," and you think "that word is disturbing, the translator is impolite," you are on the path to hating this. If you think, "good stuff, sounds like the real world," you might appreciate this. If when an actor addresses an audience member as a piece of furniture, you are angry because "that's not how proper theatre, especially Chekhov, is done," you aren't going to like this. If you laugh, and think, "this is fun, I wonder where this is going," you've a shot at enjoying yourself. These choices of Andrews' will add up, and many more follow, not least being the use of actor-musicians, and if you psychologically align conservative at each and every choice, you will be having an awful time long before the second half payoff comes, and the show will be irredeemable by then. If you are open to to these choices, you might find yourself exhilarated come the denouement. Like I said, being a conservative personality type (and it's all a spectrum anyway - my own immense conservative enjoyment of the cosy "Dear Octopus" period piece was off the charts lol) is a great advantage in many situations, especially related to survival by not taking undue risks, but it will not have been an advantage for any critic who saw this show. I think this is about cultural snobbery not class. I feel the positive reviews for this were inevitable. Too many critics will support a production like this - however awful - because they want to show themselves as sophisticated, openminded and edgy. It's frequently a case of The Emperor's New Clothes. To criticise this show is - in the eyes of many in the theatrical world - to reveal yourself as a pedestrian pleb, unable to appreciate the finer complexity of Andrews production. Whereas if it was a classic production of The Cherry Orchard that hadn't worked, they would feel happy about criticising it.
So that leaves two options for reviewers who operate in this environment, you can either rave about the performance and show yourself as a perceptive and intelligent theatregoer who is part of the zeitgest or criticise it, and risk finding yourself labelled as someone with the imagination of a colonel from the home counties. In other words, simply by expressing the view you didn't like it, that's not taken as a reasonable position but as evidence of your philistine-like ignorance.
Personally for me, the worst criticism of all for any play I see is to be bored rigid, as I was in this. I am happy to see a production done in any style in any period - if it works.(Interestingly I note that Nick Curtis in the The Standard who gave this five stars, and Clare Allfree in the Telegraph who gave it four, both disliked A Mirror which for me so far, has been one of my favourite shows of the year, so I will be taking any further opinions of theirs with an even bigger bucket load of salt.)
|
|
|
|
Post by colelarson on May 4, 2024 19:09:37 GMT
Saw this today for the Matinee and it was different!
The lights are on all the time and if sitting in AA52 you may be pulled on stage to be a bookcase.
The show starts with a Henry hoover and cast members sitting in the audience.
I did find some of the dialogue hard to hear, so voice projection wasn't great in my opinion.
I counted 9 people asleep in the stalls during the first part and people left in the interval.
I don't feel like I cared for any of the characters and to be honest I have no idea what was going on half the time! Costumes are a mix of old and modern and swear words and new words/terms are added to the original text.
Can't say it was a memorable play and not a favourite Donmar production this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on May 4, 2024 20:00:22 GMT
2017 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Young Vic
2014 A Streetcar Named Desire, Young Vic
2013 The Maids, by Jean Genet, Sydney Theatre Company
2012 Three Sisters, Young Vic
2012 Gross und Klein, Barbican
These are the works I have see from this director
Interestingly I only enjoyed Gross Und Klein for Cate B
Three Sisters was okay and worked well enough
Both Streetcar and Cat were the worst versions of each of those plays I have ever seen
Reviews are subjective always
But this director has an affected style which is overt and blatant
There is no nuance or subtlety or class in his take on things
There is an intrinsic lack of empathy and respect for the work and everything is seen via his narrow lens
Given he is hardly one of our greatest living directors
The plain fact his view and interpretation is neither radical nor enlightening nor exciting
Perhaps this would be remedied if he looked at a wider cannon of work instead of playwrights who churned out plays all on the same themes and issues or playwrights who are already revived ad infinitum
No doubt Crimp Chekhov and Williams have their place
But the breadth of what they cover and the issues explored are quite repetitive and limited
I also need to consider how many more Cherry Orchards and Seagulls and Vanya need to see I think
As I am tired of them and they ain’t all that thrilling
What I do know is that I don’t find having the house lights on or actors in the audience or swearing thrilling or innovative in any way shape or form
To me it indicates the director either thinks he is better than the playwright
Or that his audience is stupid
Or he doesn’t give a sh*t
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on May 5, 2024 9:47:48 GMT
I am with Steve for this one. I was at the matinee too yesterday and I rather liked it (and I am one who misses samovars when they are not around in Russian plays, but it would have been naive to go and see a Benedict Andrews' production expecting classical staging). It was nice to see Nina Hoss for the first time. I agree that there are some elements that are not great (put that ball away!) and the boundaries between masters and servants were not entirely clear. Éanna Hardwicke, Alison Oliver's boyfriend, was very endearing at the end helping June Watson.
|
|
276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by lt on May 5, 2024 10:35:51 GMT
2017 Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Young Vic 2014 A Streetcar Named Desire, Young Vic 2013 The Maids, by Jean Genet, Sydney Theatre Company 2012 Three Sisters, Young Vic 2012 Gross und Klein, Barbican These are the works I have see from this director Interestingly I only enjoyed Gross Und Klein for Cate B Three Sisters was okay and worked well enough Both Streetcar and Cat were the worst versions of each of those plays I have ever seen Reviews are subjective always But this director has an affected style which is overt and blatant There is no nuance or subtlety or class in his take on things There is an intrinsic lack of empathy and respect for the work and everything is seen via his narrow lens Given he is hardly one of our greatest living directors The plain fact his view and interpretation is neither radical nor enlightening nor exciting Perhaps this would be remedied if he looked at a wider cannon of work instead of playwrights who churned out plays all on the same themes and issues or playwrights who are already revived ad infinitum No doubt Crimp Chekhov and Williams have their place But the breadth of what they cover and the issues explored are quite repetitive and limited I also need to consider how many more Cherry Orchards and Seagulls and Vanya need to see I think As I am tired of them and they ain’t all that thrilling What I do know is that I don’t find having the house lights on or actors in the audience or swearing thrilling or innovative in any way shape or form To me it indicates the director either thinks he is better than the playwright Or that his audience is stupid Or he doesn’t give a sh*t I'm interested what made you keep going back to other Andrews productions? Hope over experience? Because frankly after last week, can't see I'll be booking another of his shows... |
|
1,494 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 5, 2024 11:04:53 GMT
Interestingly I only enjoyed Gross Und Klein for Cate B Three Sisters was okay and worked well enough I'm interested what made you keep going back to other Andrews productions? Hope over experience? Because frankly after last week, can't see I'll be booking another of his shows... Parsley does say he enjoyed "Gross und Klein" for Cate Blanchett, and "Three Sisters" generally, so not a total loss then. No doubt he'll speak more to this lol.
In the meantime, for me, "Gross und Klein" was revelatory for showing how Cate Blanchett's character, desperate to communicate, fails to do so again and again and again. It could easily be read as a powerful portrait of neurodivergence, where her character's brain simply functioned on a different wavelength from other people, and noone was willing to meet her half way. Heartbreaking.
"Three Sisters" had a great concept, a ground literally falling away from under the characters' feet, but the performances and characterisations were equally great, with Vanessa Kirby, Adrian Schiller, Danny Kirrane, Sam Troughton, Mariah Gale all doing such great work, I thought.
And although Parsley hated that "Streetcar," I thought the spinning set really conveyed such a caged atmosphere for Gillian Anderson's Blanche, with Stanley always claustrophically somewhere on it, behind a curtain or whatever, that she had no escape, and I just had to cry.
I wasn't bothered about whether the clothes of those productions belonged to Emperors or paupers, whether they were new or old, but they did break my heart. :'
|
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on May 5, 2024 11:06:03 GMT
Partly as I see everything
Or I used to
I have amended ways as life is too short to sit in a theatre all the time
But to answer the question it’s a more a case of Andrews directing always at the venues I am most loyal to
Added to this the casting in his other shows was starry
So I was attracted to see Cate Blanchett and Gillian Anderson etc
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 6, 2024 18:30:02 GMT
So puzzled Colonel of the Home Counties here. I thought Dear Octopus was dull but I like a samovar. So I’ll let you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on May 7, 2024 23:38:17 GMT
I am in the camp of loving this production. I loved how they kept the house lights on and how the cast sit among the audience - it feels really immersive if you’re in the stalls and the company really grip you. Each of the cast have a very vivid presence in the show and I just felt totally absorbed by it.
After the interval, I did notice a few people didn’t return so clearly not to everyone’s taste. The smoke machine was a bit much but the nihilist vibe remained very strong. I wasn’t hugely familiar with the cast but thought Sadie Soveral’s Anya to be terrific. June Watson… what a legend! Michael Gould and Daniel Monks both brilliant and thought Nina Hoss lived up to her hype too. Really lovely multi-dimensional performances that were thrilling to watch. Would love to see this again but can see it’s sold out so hoping for a transfer / extension/ recording.
On another note, was the “bookcase” tonight a plant or were they genuinely an audience member? Rather good cameo moment.
|
|
