|
|
Post by max on May 30, 2024 21:54:32 GMT
Sometimes it takes going fully ‘out there’ to get to the heart of something, and see home. This production did that for me. Michael Billington said of Benedict Andrews’ 2012 Young Vic ‘Three Sisters’: “For all its strangeness, I found Andrews' production true to the spirit of Chekhov's great play and, in the end, profoundly moving”. What do I know? - I’m not Russian and it’s not the early 1900s; but I felt this ‘Cherry Orchard’ was faithful to Chekhov and reached for authenticity by approaching from ‘far out’. What I do know is that it felt staggeringly relevant to Britain today, and specifically the country in the last few months.
“Some people say I’ve gobbled my fortune in Chupa Chups”.
What a line! Gaev stands there getting the oral comfort a child does from a lolly, or a baby sucking on a dummy; only breaking to blowhard with his other comfort: verbal exhibition-match snooker moves. What once was cute (under the eye of nanny-like Firs who’s still lingering on) is now a husk of self-strangling habit - a loop of tropes and chat that guards against seeing or sorting any real problems. You could replace Chupa Chups with other deluding comforts: the royal family; fetishising ‘The Blitz Spirit’ and National Service; National Trust houses being told to concentrate on selling Jam rather than their true history; and knee jerk phrases like ‘world beating’ and ‘world leading’ or ‘the NHS is the envy of the world’.
Going down that route, I couldn’t help but think of Sadiq Khan, and the horrific racism that accompanied his name anywhere on ‘X/Twitter’ when he was mentioned during the Mayoral Election campaign. It’s a wonder that in victory he doesn’t parade the snarling ‘rub their noses in it’ glee that Adeel Akhtar’s Lopakhin does near the end here (pushing rather further than most productions). Khan’s haters think he’s done so anyway - just by legitimately winning, so he might as well enjoy himself. Only cultural commentator Shola Mos-Shogbamimu dares to play with this in public - I think she knows it’s beneath her, but still toys with people, using the ‘so kiss my Black ass’ shtick. Adeel Akhtar has a terrific rising arc across the piece, and what his ethnicity/heritage brought to it wasn’t just a side dish.
Standing outside at the interval I heard complaints - one couple leaving, saying “I mean the lines are pretty much all there but how does it improve on the original?’; another going back in but saying “interpretation yes, but this is just bad, so bad”.
The lines really are all there; I dusted off a version at home (I rather like those old Penguin translations) and this new version is speech-by-speech (often line-for-line) faithful. Andrews hasn’t cut anything up, or out, to make it fit some predetermined high concept idea he’d come up with. He’s just found so much vibrant life in it. Near the start there are so many characters introduced, and names bandied about, the fact they nod towards cast members sat amongst the audience (who’d usually be offstage) is surely a positive help to first timers identifying who they’re talking about. Arty pretension? - no, just damned helpful. I loved the member of the audience addressed as the beloved bookcase, and so much beyond.
For me, a state of the nation play. Britain, not Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by leddy on May 30, 2024 22:24:38 GMT
Another one in the strongly pro camp here, having randomly picked up a ticket because I left my keys at home and needed to wait for my partner to finish work. Read no reviews and inadvertently found myself in the front row but by the time they (usually horror!) asked me up to dance I was already on their side. I suppose I can see if you were new to Chekhov that it might be confusing but the plot is really not the “Point” of Chekhov and there was a spirit to this that made me feel warm and alive. Very much with whoever up the thread said this is one for the open minded. Today I both needed and loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on May 31, 2024 6:11:19 GMT
leddy did you get any advance warning about the audience participation/dancing?
|
|
|
|
Post by leddy on May 31, 2024 10:14:42 GMT
No, not at all. But the actor was sitting next to me for the last 5 minutes of the interval and chatting, so I'm guessing they gauged that I wouldn't mind. Same for the guy near me who was the bookcase last night - the actor who soliloquised at him came around in the interval to say thank you and give him a lollipop. Having heard that conversation, I would be very surprised indeed if he was a plant. The actors said that Nina had 'picked' him when she first referred to the bookcase, so presumably she makes up her mind each night about who would be amenable. Apparently the production has no blocking and the actors draw lots to sit in different seats every night, so I think part of the 'method' is them getting a feel for the particular audience.
|
|
276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by lt on May 31, 2024 16:05:40 GMT
Another one in the strongly pro camp here, having randomly picked up a ticket because I left my keys at home and needed to wait for my partner to finish work. Read no reviews and inadvertently found myself in the front row but by the time they (usually horror!) asked me up to dance I was already on their side. I suppose I can see if you were new to Chekhov that it might be confusing but the plot is really not the “Point” of Chekhov and there was a spirit to this that made me feel warm and alive. Very much with whoever up the thread said this is one for the open minded. Today I both needed and loved it. I don't think it is a production necessarily for the open or closed minded, it's just some people like it and some don't. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 1, 2024 9:25:27 GMT
Max, you seem to think that a few contemporary references allow us to see this play as a commentary on the state of the nation. Well, all productions are that aren’t they? Nothing to do with the references (for me the student rant was just that, a rant, on the same lines as those we are being offered daily on uni campuses) it is about the tone of the show, the way they ‘do’ it. This one, very Brechtian, a bit meta , loved the ‘how boring’ it is line directed towards the audience near the end. Yes, watching parts of it was but was she referring to acting it? There were moments of utter tedium and moments of glorious tension. The big moments done well except the big, big one. When mama realises not only that the estate is sold but to whom , she collapses in sobs, on the floor and so quite out of sight for the audience not seated in the first rows. I was in row c and could not see her and her interaction with Lopatkin (spelling sorry, my copy elsewhere ) at all. That the characters were on the floor most of the time was a pain as I couldn’t see them. I’m not a tiny person and the woman in front of me was ok size wise but I do think directors should sit in the seats we pay for and adjust accordingly. Perhaps the rellies were seated upstairs.
There was a good production of Chekhov lurking here and this one just goes to show how a good play can survive most things. I didn’t like the music at all. It went on and on , like a poor nature documentary on the telly and the drums were played great but obscured my view of most of that long, long scene. Lovely casting and nice acting, uncle especially good, methought. The carpet thing at the end was very nice tough. Liked that.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 1, 2024 11:16:42 GMT
lynette , I think recent times in our self-deluding nation sharpen the resonance of 'The Cherry Orchard' in absolutely any version. Michael Frayn's, directed by Sam Mendes (what a cast! - Judi Dench, Ronald Pickup, Bernard Hill, Lesley Manville) was the first I saw (1989/90), and must have chimed back then for it to run an impressive 5 months in the West End. I enjoyed that as much as this, and also Andrew Upton's 2011 version with Zoe Wanamaker at the National Theatre. Many didn't like Upton's; along with Benedict Andrews what is it with Australians making Chekhov sweary? - but I liked both versions so I'm here for it, though not because of it. Mentioning Chupa Chups doesn't make it contemporary; Gaev has sweets in all versions, but the lolly and the silly brand name - beneath him and infantalising - was just one of the details I thought were well worth it, getting their additional value from the updating. There was a bit of business with the carpets near the end which seemed to strike a false note. Epikhodov kept fussing with the carpet for no reason, and then undid what he'd done. But then he said something like "there you see, typical me" - it just went that bit further in showing another character putting actual effort into the role he's stuck himself with: 'the klutz'. Anything but face reality and put something worthwhile to rights. In other versions where he puts a heavy suitcase on a hatbox and crushes it, it's still daft, but more genuinely clumsy than concocted. For me all those little details came together in a clear vision, but I get that they didn't for everyone. Sitting where you were, you may have missed a subtle moment near the end where Ranevskaya lightly tossed her empty purse to Anya. Not much was made of it, but I loved Ranevskaya's wordless answer to her own earlier assertion she should put her finances in her daughter's hands - she finally does it when it's all too late, of course. I saw a matinee from the side balcony, which may have been better for catching some of it. My only complaint is that we didn't get the audience dancing I've read about here; perhaps they only do it at evening performances, relying on a few drinks to loosen people up? I've seen many classics where I've thought 'you really don't need to ram the contemporary references for us to find what's already in the writing, thanks', and I will again. This one worked for me.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 1, 2024 13:45:35 GMT
I did see the purse toss but not the crucial snog between Ranevskaya and Lopatkin, which I believe isn’t usually there cos it was in your corner!
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 1, 2024 18:25:55 GMT
I did see the purse toss but not the crucial snog between Ranevskaya and Lopatkin, which I believe isn’t usually there cos it was in your corner! Lopatkin had his back to me - I thought they got interrupted before it properly happened. I guess I'll never know if it was a snog or a sno.... Much as I loved it, I'm not going back - there are limits ; ) |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 1, 2024 21:37:20 GMT
Now we need more witnesses. Was it a snog or a sno?
|
|
1,236 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 1, 2024 22:18:59 GMT
Please don’t make us have to relive any moments of this show. 🙏🏻
|
|
|
|
Post by merrilywereadalong on Jun 2, 2024 6:29:59 GMT
I did see the purse toss but not the crucial snog between Ranevskaya and Lopatkin, which I believe isn’t usually there cos it was in your corner! Lopatkin had his back to me - I thought they got interrupted before it properly happened. I guess I'll never know if it was a snog or a sno.... Much as I loved it, I'm not going back - there are limits ; ) When I went the other night I can confirm it was a capital S snog which took me for complete surprise!! A few days later and I can't stop thinking about this production. I totally get the hate, annoyance and frustration at certain things and admitedly I was row A stalls and can't imagine it'd be as enjoyable or intense from either upstairs or further back (but I'd be delighted to hear that I'm wrong in thinking that) but I found this riveting and compelling as hell. It's so so rare to have that level of cohesion from a company of actors in a Chekhov play (it's almost always happens where one or two actors nail the tone/direction and then everyone else is sort of...in their own version of the play) to single out one would be impossible for me because this really felt like an Avengers ensemble attacking what is, I think one of his most difficult and complex plays. It was FUNNY, it was boring when it needed to be boring (I so echo the earlier post re: the "isn't it boring?" to the audience) and it was terrifying and devestating when the party finally comes to a crashing halt. This made me feel things I've never felt in the four or so Cherry Orchards I've seen. Booked to see it again next week and I can't wait. a VERY strong 4.5 stars |
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 2, 2024 8:46:00 GMT
Thanks for the Snog confirmation merrilywereadalong ! I saw it from the Balcony - mainly great view. It's certainly one that's kept me thinking, in fact.... Idea for the Donmar Warehouse (in light of how Firs ends up): Second Interval, then the audience come back to Firs delivering Samuel Beckett's 'Happy Days'. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jun 2, 2024 14:10:57 GMT
Reading the thread, there's not much to add.
I am firmly in the disappointed and (very) bored camp, but can't see any merit in the arguments criticising the acting which I thought was of a high standard. I found all of the directorial affectations tiresome and detracting from rather than enhancing the work.
I spent a lot of time people-watching other audience members just to make the time drag less. A curious couple opposite had broad rictus grins almost throughout the second act, which was a little bizarre. Perhaps they were proud parents of a cast member?
The wall and floor carpet, not to mention the ceiling light box, must have cost a pretty penny. It's a shame that they added nothing of value.
When the floor-covering was suddenly ripped up, I thought, oh, so the peach-coloured carpet was meant to be symbolic of the orchard (which itself, as we know, is a metaphor for Russian privileged society). But later, the script tells us the destruction of the cherry trees has not yet begun, so clearly I was wrong. I'm still baffled as to why the family decided to tear up their carpets before leaving.
I did like the removal of the heavy black drape between stalls row D and the entrance corridor. It made the auditorium feel much less claustrophobic.
I thought it outrageous, in a venue with such a small capacity on a sold-out show, that the director had been allowed to deny a dozen theatregoers the opportunity to buy tickets by requiring some seats for the cast. That's also £600+ of lost revenue per performance. I could see no earthly reason why the cast could not have exited entirely or brought on portable chairs to sit on in the corners.
Two stars.
Act 1: 14:35-15:49 (hoovering from 14:29)
Act 2: 16:08-17:19
(Having seen a preview of Opening Night after the infamous hoovering scene had been excised, I was delighted to enjoy six minutes of it here. We're surely in need of a Best Cleaning-Up Olivier.)
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 2, 2024 18:35:44 GMT
There are 28 extra seats not normally used at the Donmar, to create the in-the-round set up, so if all cast have a seat (12) that's a surplus of 16 made available to us beloved proletariat.
As Russian outcomes go, that's positively Soviet Union-style command and control economics.
победа товарищ! (Victory Comrade!). ; )
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Jun 2, 2024 20:18:18 GMT
There are 28 extra seats not normally used at the Donmar, to create the in-the-round set up, so if all cast have a seat (12) that's a surplus of 16 made available to us beloved proletariat. As Russian outcomes go, that's positively Soviet Union-style command and control economics. победа товарищ! (Victory Comrade!). ; ) I've often wondered about the adding of extra and on-stage seats at London theaters. I used to run a small theater in New York and was terrified (quite rightly) of falling afoul of the fire and capacity laws, which prohibited adding seats and exceeding capacity. I tend not to like stage seats in general. When I realized that I had purchased one of those added upstage seats for The Cherry Orchard, I exchanged it. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Jun 2, 2024 20:34:52 GMT
I'm starting to think, with the additional income from 'the round', they might have saved the orchard.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 3, 2024 10:10:21 GMT
I'm starting to think, with the additional income from 'the round', they might have saved the orchard. In a further meta and immersive twist - the wooden boards exposed late in the show and the wood pulp for the paper programmes were all derived from chopping down the cherry orchard. It's gone, but the family and hangers on return each day to reenact it. The Donmar has put them up in a Travelodge in Euston. |
|
1,236 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 3, 2024 10:56:37 GMT
I'm starting to think, with the additional income from 'the round', they might have saved the orchard. In a further meta and immersive twist - the wooden boards exposed late in the show and the wood pulp for the paper programmes were all derived from chopping down the cherry orchard. It's gone, but the family and hangers on return each day to reenact it. The Donmar has put them up in a Travelodge in Euston. Shattered dreams of a production that could have been… |
|
zed
Auditioning
12 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by zed on Jun 5, 2024 8:53:18 GMT
I went last night on a £15 standing ticket (in part as I didn't want to invest full price at a show that had such mixed reviews). Right at the end of intermission though, as mentioned by someone else, the staff came by and called me and the others in the standing row and whisked us to stall seats...in my case, right next to a couple of the actors.
I must say, there's nothing quite like sitting this close at the Donmar -- especially in a production like this one where the actors apparently have pretty free rein to change things up with blocking/line readings. The production -- especially in the "party" scene -- felt really alive and exciting for me. The actors seemed more like they were a longstanding theatre company, rather than a group that is coming together for a short time to put this production on.
Anyway, I really loved it and would definitely recommend going if you can get close up stall seats (I was enjoying the first half well enough from the circle, but the second half being practically on stage was breathtaking). I understand some of the criticisms regarding the plot elements (story is still firmly rooted in late 19th century Russia, but so much is inexplicably modern), but I just went with the flow and focused on the performances which were uniformly excellent imho (Nina H. and Adeel A. in particular).
|
|
|
|
Post by derf1990 on Jun 17, 2024 15:19:23 GMT
Just sold 4 tickets back to the box office for Thursday eve if anyone wanted to see this despite some of the comments here. Looks like 1 already gone.
|
|
276 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by lt on Jun 18, 2024 9:57:26 GMT
I see perfect symmetry has been achieved on TCO vote: 3,7,4,7,3!
|
|
|
|
Post by oedipus on Jun 19, 2024 13:43:17 GMT
Caught this last night on the recommendation of a friend. Well, I appreciated its over-the-top quirkiness, and the cast was completely in sync with the director's vision: this was a go-for-broke, eccentric production with an on-stage music combo, constant metatheatrical gestures, and general weirdness. That said, it's my third Cherry Orchard, and if I hadn't seen the first two, I fear I would have been rather lost. (There are a lot of characters and wheels-within-wheels that tended to get lost in the general swirl of mayhem.) I haven't voted above, but I suspect it would be three cherries. (Or, given the oddness of the production, perhaps three cherry kombuchas or something.)
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 22, 2024 18:18:11 GMT
Sitting in my seat waiting for tonight’s show to start, I’m not impressed by the set (or should I say lack of one): rather than anything Russian, I’m getting the impression of an empty 70s curry house 🫤
|
|
|
|
Post by merrilywereadalong on Jun 22, 2024 21:23:51 GMT
Will miss this production very much. I saw it three times and each time was it's own unique little constellation of a show. Also it was always fun to see the range and extremity of audience reactions. From being asked to dance with Yasha to those I saw each visit standing at the end with tears in their eyes to the elderly lady who hollered to anyone who would listen to her on her way out the theatre at the interval "THAT WAS THE MOST **AWFUL** THING I'VE EVER SEEN!!!! I'M SO SICK OF THESE BAT S***T PRODUCTIONS!!!"
Fun memories.
|
|
