1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 17, 2022 1:57:49 GMT
I feel obliged to raise an important caveat - despite the billing, this is not really Ionesco's play "The Chairs". Ionescu's play is contained within a performance which has been book-ended with a beginning and a very long ending which were not written by Ionescu but by the translator and director Omar Elerian. These are not minor tinkerings but add significant text (which partly explains the bloated length of nearly 2 hours to a play which should run for around 1.5 hours) and change the tone, meaning and texture of Ionesco's play. It is, effectively, a different play to the play Ionesco write. It is disappointing for this not to be highlighted in the credits as someone without a knowledge of Ionesco's play might actually believe he had just seen the original.
Which is a shame because - quirky opening, unnecessary "updatings" (ie incisions) and clunky ending aside, this actually has two fantastic performances by Kathryn Hunter and Marcello Magni in a play which had lost none of its relevance and theatrical power.
The quintessence of absurdist theatre, spoilers don't really apply in "The Chairs" but just in case there's some spoilers here. The old couple here have all the music-hall patter and banter of Beckett's tramps bur far more self-consciously so - in this production the fourth wall is absent, which adds more business with audience participation but gets some extra laughs. Whilst Ionesco's original makes an important existential point through its abrupt ending, bereft of hope, the new ending tacked onto this simply deconstructs the original ending with a long-winded, funny in parts but ultimately pointless speech which despite the grafted political statements actually only succeeds in reducing the meaning to a theatrical performance.
Superb performance from the two leads, a true mano-a-mano which justifies the ticket price several times over. Their visual relationship, a geriatric version of Chaplinesque clown/tramp with a living marionette, is developed with perfect timing and empathy as they alternate the comic roles of set-up and gagster with a perfect mixture of slapstick and wordplay, not excluding many bits of business with imaginary and real objects and other theatrical tricks which never feel stale.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Feb 17, 2022 8:10:05 GMT
I enjoyed it and agree with a lot of what you say about the main body of the play and performaces!
I liked the ending a little more than you: it fit in to the rest of the play i thought. And the slapstick at the end was funny i thought!
|
|
530 posts
|
Post by jampot on Feb 17, 2022 11:19:36 GMT
I feel obliged to raise an important caveat - despite the billing, this is not really Ionesco's play "The Chairs". Ionescu's play is contained within a performance which has been book-ended with a beginning and a very long ending which were not written by Ionescu but by the translator and director Omar Elerian. These are not minor tinkerings but add significant text (which partly explains the bloated length of nearly 2 hours to a play which should run for around 1.5 hours) and change the tone, meaning and texture of Ionesco's play. It is, effectively, a different play to the play Ionesco write. It is disappointing for this not to be highlighted in the credits as someone without a knowledge of Ionesco's play might actually believe he had just seen the original. Which is a shame because - quirky opening, unnecessary "updatings" (ie incisions) and clunky ending aside, this actually has two fantastic performances by Kathryn Hunter and Marcello Magni in a play which had lost none of its relevance and theatrical power. The quintessence of absurdist theatre, spoilers don't really apply in "The Chairs" but just in case there's some spoilers here. The old couple here have all the music-hall patter and banter of Beckett's tramps bur far more self-consciously so - in this production the fourth wall is absent, which adds more business with audience participation but gets some extra laughs. Whilst Ionesco's original makes an important existential point through its abrupt ending, bereft of hope, the new ending tacked onto this simply deconstructs the original ending with a long-winded, funny in parts but ultimately pointless speech which despite the grafted political statements actually only succeeds in reducing the meaning to a theatrical performance. Superb performance from the two leads, a true mano-a-mano which justifies the ticket price several times over. Their visual relationship, a geriatric version of Chaplinesque clown/tramp with a living marionette, is developed with perfect timing and empathy as they alternate the comic roles of set-up and gagster with a perfect mixture of slapstick and wordplay, not excluding many bits of business with imaginary and real objects and other theatrical tricks which never feel stale. Great read..I was at the matinee yesterday and pulled up on stage as one of the chair movers and additional guest welcoming team... |
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Feb 17, 2022 21:40:07 GMT
I don’t know if I liked this… it definitely didn’t hold my attention the whole way through and it’s hard to figure out where they’re trying to go with it. I guess the ending offers more points for contemplation but it’s generally pretty slapstick. Perhaps it’s a point of taste I guess?
I was at the U25 performance and was pretty surprised to see how well my peer group responded though - full standing ovation at the end and plenty of laughs throughout. It definitely boggles the mind and there are some really funny moments but I didn’t find it quite the standout I was expecting it to be
|
|
547 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Feb 18, 2022 8:54:38 GMT
I found this very hard work and had their been an interval I would have walked. As the original post suggests, I was expecting a straight up revival and don't think the epilogue added a great deal. A long 2 hrs for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 18, 2022 12:50:55 GMT
I wonder why they felt justified in adding material which changes meaning of the original play ? They do it happily for old plays out of copyright but this one was written in 1952 and the author only died in 1994. Just as an example The Birthday Party by Harold Pinter was written in 1957 and I'm certain that text would always be treated as Holy Writ not to be altered in any way. What's the difference ? Foreign author ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Feb 20, 2022 13:23:55 GMT
I saw this last night, and loved everything but the final speech.
Oddly enough, I'm not sure what it was about but somehow that doesn't frustrate me (it usually would!). I loved the performances and the quirky directorial choices and the atmosphere of it, without needing to get much more out of it.
As it started, I was enamoured with the idea of the love she had for him - I saw her as someone who wanted to help him fulfil his potential she believed he had - but after discussing it with a friend I'm not sure if that was a sound assumption on my part.
I think Andrzej Lukowski summed my feelings about it pretty well in his TimeOut review:"It’s possible Elerian’s take on ‘The Chairs’ constitutes a scathingly brilliant takedown of late capitalism that I missed because I was too busy laughing at Kathryn Hunter’s funny faces. But I left with the impression of a largely apolitical, bathetic, and inventively mischievous take the little-seen classic..." (Not sure about the "bathetic" bit, tho - it's a "big" word for me.)
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Feb 22, 2022 10:04:56 GMT
I haven't seen a previous production, so if I'm just judging this on its own merits, rather than how this production/interpretation/adaptation compares to others, then I loved it all, including the extra framing sections.
But I also found the framing parts a bit of a distraction in trying to make sense of the core play and characters, and I wondered what this material added to the play, and whether there was a problem with the play that needed addressing to make sense for a 2022 audience.
I just listened to an old audio version on YouTube with Siobhan McKenna and Cyril Cusack, and the ending felt more powerful and moving. So I now wonder if, in giving us this additional lengthy explanation of the workings of the play, the Almeida version lacks faith in the original writing, or in the audience's ability to cope with a play that isn't straightforward?
I'm probably overthinking. I enjoyed it a lot, would happily see it again, and Hunter and Magni were brilliant.
|
|
1,865 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dave B on Feb 27, 2022 9:29:37 GMT
"Horribly miscast" "How can anyone find this funny" "Like Mrs Brown's Boys" "There isn't an interval because people would not come back" Suffice it to say, we have a a bit of a schism in our household here as I loved it.
I thought it was great, the performances were absolutely amazing, sure the slapstick was good but the performances to the invisible guests were *so* good. I was entertained from start to finish. I am not at all familiar with the original play and I really liked (most) of the ending monologue that seems to have been added here. It was a little too long and leaned a little too much into prop support but it really worked for me.
Easily worth the price of admission for Marcello Magni and Kathryn Hunter.
|
|
4,988 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Mar 1, 2022 8:06:55 GMT
I want keen on the prologue and epilogue but loved the rest especially Kathleen Hunter. 90% of this production is amazing.
I don't read reviews or threads until I've seen a show, I've now discovered the director and adaptor has decided to 'improve' it. He shouldn't of bothered.
But an evening of brilliantly accomplished performances that reiterated why I love theatre.
|
|
2,859 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Sept 18, 2022 15:58:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Sept 18, 2022 16:15:21 GMT
Very sad news. I thought he and his wife Kathryn (I only found out they were married after seeing the play) were great in The Chairs. RIP
|
|
