Who/what/where: A View From The Bridge, The Young Vic
I like the Young Vic as a venue, while the seating can be a bit uncomfortable they always try to do something a little different with the stage and the set. This was no exception, and the audience is effectively around three-quarters of the venue with the play taking place between them. It can be a little off-putting sometimes to look past the actors and see a sea of faces staring through, but that's a minor niggle.
The set if fairly minimalistic, the stage has a glass lip around it - this is topped with benches, aside from that there's use of sprinklers to act as a shower etc, even the props are limited to a chair and not a lot else, the rest is entirely done with costume and the actor's performances, so it's just as well they all put in excellent performances. Interestingly enough everyone is barefoot throughout the entire performance bar a couple of key moments - whether this is to add to the enclosed feel of their apartment, almost as a a boxing ring - as will become evident when it drives the two men into conflict, or is like that for another reason is open to your own interpretation. The clean, minimalistic feel makes the performance feel almost timeless - with only certain references within the dialogue to pin it down to a particular decade.
The play runs for around two hours without an interval, so strap yourself in, you're in for an intensive ride that doesn't let up until it's done with you.
Mark Strong stars as Eddie Carbone. This is his first role on stage in some years, and certainly the first I've caught him in, though I have seen him in several films etc. He looks to have lost some weight for the role, which is fitting, and he brings a perfect amount of intensity to the role, when the lawyer, our narrator, describes Eddie as having "eyes like tunnels" Strong is able to capture this perfectly.
Phoebe Fox is Catherine, Eddie's niece, and when they say in the play about the shortness of her skirt, the performance has taken this and run with it - we don't believe there was a single person in the audience that didn't see the character's underwear at least one, certainly the girls in our group commented on it after the play.
Eddie's tragic flaw that he loves his niece a little too obsessively, and this one thing drives him deeper and deeper down a dark route, no matter how good his intentions we can see the inevitable, yet we can no more turn away than he can. The man is intense, flawed, driven, and yet perfectly understandable - while people may not go down the same route as he did, everybody can certainly imagine characters who would.
Eddie Carbone and his wife play host to two illegal immigrants, cousins of hers from Italy, the older brother, Marco, aims to be there for a while to work and earn money for his wife and children at home, and had it just been him there would have been no problem, but his younger brother, Rodolpho is where it all starts to go wrong. He enjoys the American life a little too much, and his traits, in addition to his blossoming relationship with Eddie's niece Catherine, don't sit well with Eddie.
As the play progresses and time passes the small apartment becomes ever more claustrophobic, a steady beat, rhythmical like the ticking of a clock is our only background noise as we experience some of the tenses silences you'll see on stage. Simply sitting watching characters stare at each other is emotionally draining in a way you wouldn't think possible, so you can just imagine what it must take out of the actors to do that, day after day.
I don't want to say too much about the play's climax in case people haven't encountered the play before, but suffice it to say that this is very well done and the stage design works very well for it.
The run is already sold-out, and I can understand why. However it is possible to call on the day, and that's certainly something I suggest doing if you get the opportunity to do so.
Showing posts with label theatre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theatre. Show all posts
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Saturday, May 03, 2014
Theatre - Let The Right One In
Who/what/where: Let The Right One In, Apollo Theatre
This is the first time I've been to the Apollo Theatre in a little while, certainly since prior to the ceiling incident - which was still being spoken about by some of the audience. That said, it doesn't seem to have harmed attendance too much.
The first thing that hits you as you come in to see this show is that the set is stunning. There are trees set-up throughout (a couple are clearly designed to be climbed in later scenes but we'll gloss over that for a moment) and they've covered the backdrop with some additional three-dimensional trees to give a good sense of depth, with a lamp post in the background on the stage. The only other initial piece of set visible is the children's play area, however as the play progresses they manage to work in several other props too.
This story was originally a book, which was then made into a film of the same name, and then remade as "Let Me In" a couple of years ago. This version goes a little further up the chain - including a few things that didn't make it into the remake of the film for example. Equally there were elements which needed to be cut and/or changed to work on stage, and a couple of scenes I am am surprised stayed in as they were.
If you're not familiar with any of the existing versions, be warned, the play has some blood in it, and there's a bit of swearing too. The language was divisive in our audience, one person felt that Jonny getting called abusive names by his older brother was a little excessive, I personally felt it was necessary to the plot for a number of reasons - not the least to show that, no matter how horrible he is to Oskar, he receives worse at home.
The tale is fundamentally a love story between two children, one of whom happens to be a vampire, though it does explore some fairly dark themes along the way - bullying, alcoholism, and so on.
In the lead-up to the play starting we see people walking through the woods, before one of them is murdered, strung up and drained of blood. This won't be the first death, and if you're put off by this scene, perhaps the play isn't for you.
Oskar, played by Martin Quinn, is a troubled boy. The play has barely begun and we already see him bullied at school. However, later, while he is playing outside on his estate he meets Eli, played by Rebecca Benson. Benson does a fantastic job as Eli, while you might initially confuse her almost robotic attitude as Eli as a flaw, you would be mistaken - and as the play progresses she gets to show more of the breadth of her skills, but I am getting ahead of myself, for now, suffice it to say, it's a strong portrayal of someone who really doesn't know how to act around other people. And then, later on, when necessary, she manages to come across as scary, disconcerting, hurt, and all sorts of other impressions that capture the character wonderfully. She also spends a significant amount of the play running around barefoot.
Eli has moved into the apartment next to Oskar, and Hakan, her "father" (to the eyes of Oskar and his family) is the serial killer that has been at work in the area. In reality he has been protecting Eli and killing to get blood for her, though it's a warped relationship at best.
Hakan's mutilation by acid is kept in the play - and takes place on-stage leading into the interval. Later on, his death is also performed on-stage, but kept to a simple snapping of the neck rather than going out of the window.
Eli eventually confides in Oskar and reveals her true nature, and shows him what happens if she enters without invitation. Throughout the play she does come out of her shell, doing things she wouldn't normally do for him - even the simple-seeming act of trying a sweet for the first time is shown to be more difficult for her than you might initially expect as vampires are not known for the ability to consume solid food.
In the play's climax Oskar is attacked by bullies in the swimming pool - this was the scene I really didn't expect them to have kept in, but they manage to have a set-piece, fill it with water and dunk an actor as part of the scene, so all credit to them. While Oskar is being held underwater Eli attacks and slays the bullies - like several of the violent scenes in the play this takes place as a stylised almost dance-like fashion.
It's a well-done play, with fine performances throughout, but the thing that you really need to appreciate is the set.
This is the first time I've been to the Apollo Theatre in a little while, certainly since prior to the ceiling incident - which was still being spoken about by some of the audience. That said, it doesn't seem to have harmed attendance too much.
The first thing that hits you as you come in to see this show is that the set is stunning. There are trees set-up throughout (a couple are clearly designed to be climbed in later scenes but we'll gloss over that for a moment) and they've covered the backdrop with some additional three-dimensional trees to give a good sense of depth, with a lamp post in the background on the stage. The only other initial piece of set visible is the children's play area, however as the play progresses they manage to work in several other props too.
This story was originally a book, which was then made into a film of the same name, and then remade as "Let Me In" a couple of years ago. This version goes a little further up the chain - including a few things that didn't make it into the remake of the film for example. Equally there were elements which needed to be cut and/or changed to work on stage, and a couple of scenes I am am surprised stayed in as they were.
If you're not familiar with any of the existing versions, be warned, the play has some blood in it, and there's a bit of swearing too. The language was divisive in our audience, one person felt that Jonny getting called abusive names by his older brother was a little excessive, I personally felt it was necessary to the plot for a number of reasons - not the least to show that, no matter how horrible he is to Oskar, he receives worse at home.
The tale is fundamentally a love story between two children, one of whom happens to be a vampire, though it does explore some fairly dark themes along the way - bullying, alcoholism, and so on.
In the lead-up to the play starting we see people walking through the woods, before one of them is murdered, strung up and drained of blood. This won't be the first death, and if you're put off by this scene, perhaps the play isn't for you.
Oskar, played by Martin Quinn, is a troubled boy. The play has barely begun and we already see him bullied at school. However, later, while he is playing outside on his estate he meets Eli, played by Rebecca Benson. Benson does a fantastic job as Eli, while you might initially confuse her almost robotic attitude as Eli as a flaw, you would be mistaken - and as the play progresses she gets to show more of the breadth of her skills, but I am getting ahead of myself, for now, suffice it to say, it's a strong portrayal of someone who really doesn't know how to act around other people. And then, later on, when necessary, she manages to come across as scary, disconcerting, hurt, and all sorts of other impressions that capture the character wonderfully. She also spends a significant amount of the play running around barefoot.
Eli has moved into the apartment next to Oskar, and Hakan, her "father" (to the eyes of Oskar and his family) is the serial killer that has been at work in the area. In reality he has been protecting Eli and killing to get blood for her, though it's a warped relationship at best.
Hakan's mutilation by acid is kept in the play - and takes place on-stage leading into the interval. Later on, his death is also performed on-stage, but kept to a simple snapping of the neck rather than going out of the window.
Eli eventually confides in Oskar and reveals her true nature, and shows him what happens if she enters without invitation. Throughout the play she does come out of her shell, doing things she wouldn't normally do for him - even the simple-seeming act of trying a sweet for the first time is shown to be more difficult for her than you might initially expect as vampires are not known for the ability to consume solid food.
In the play's climax Oskar is attacked by bullies in the swimming pool - this was the scene I really didn't expect them to have kept in, but they manage to have a set-piece, fill it with water and dunk an actor as part of the scene, so all credit to them. While Oskar is being held underwater Eli attacks and slays the bullies - like several of the violent scenes in the play this takes place as a stylised almost dance-like fashion.
It's a well-done play, with fine performances throughout, but the thing that you really need to appreciate is the set.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Theatre - Fatal Attraction
Who/what/where: Fatal Attraction, Theatre Royal Haymarket
There are certain seasonal trends with West End Theatre, for example a few years ago the plays were very dark, this year it seems to be all about the film adaptations - while there's been a few shows on which have been films, typically these will rely on the original source material and perhaps reference other versions/sources. Fatal Attraction is not one of those, and proudly proclaims the origins. That said, they have managed to get the original screenwriter to pen the stage version, and this has been directed by Sir Trevor Nunn, so there's some good credentials behind the performance.
It was interesting to look around the audience for this one and see how many couples etc there were in the audience. Admittedly this was a matinee, but it did not appear to be a prominent "date play" for the theatre-goers. I wonder why...
For those of you unfamiliar with the storyline of Fatal Attraction, it follows the basic format of (married) boy meets girl, boy gets girl, girl becomes obsessed, and that's when it all starts to go very wrong, increasingly bad stuff happens, a bunny gets boiled, there's an confrontation, and the. The end. There will be potential spoilers below, you have been warned.
The overall cast of the play is strong and Natascha McElhone is clearly enjoying playing the role of Alex Forrest - there's something about that sort of flawed "villain" that no doubt makes it just the sort of role you can get your teeth into.
Without risking giving too much away, the ending of the play is much closer to the original ending of the film (not the one used in the final release) but, if anything, slightly darker. In addition, certain elements have been updated to a more modern setting regarding phones, email, and so on. People are able to stalk each other in a much more varied way than they could back when the film was made. Everyone has a phone with them, there's the internet, email, social media, oh so many ways we can keep track of what people are doing, where they are, and what they've been up to. And that's before we consider how many people post pictures of themselves, check-in to locations etc. But that's a topic for another time.
The play opens with one of the later scenes chronologically as Dan is talking with his friend Jimmy about the problem he's now having with Alex and what to do about it. Dan explains how a series of wrong decisions have led him to this moment, and then we move to the meat of the play - the majority of it taking place prior to this scene.
Of interest was how certain scenes played differently to the audience - I was sat in a place where women were either side of me, so during the scene in which Alex is talking about being pregnant to which Dan offers to pay for an abortion I was able to see how they both crossed their legs as one while using their crossed arms as an almost physical barrier to the scene. As a man this scene had a different feel to me.
The bunny boiling scene was very tastefully done, with no rabbit to be seen, merely a steaming pot.
And finally, the ending. For comparative purposes:
The final cut used in the film is fairly Hollywood where she gets killed after trying to kill him and his family.
The original film ending (not used as it scored poorly with test audiences) has her killing herself, him accused of murder, and then exonerated by a recording of her threatening to commit suicide.
This version is much closer to the film cut, with her killing herself, and him accused of the murder (his prints on the weapon, etc) - the scene ends as he is dragged away by the police. The final scene is Alex killing herself in a reference to Madame Butterfly.
There's quite a bit of Butterfly references during the play and some symbolism along the way. I confess, it was not a story I was familiar with at the start of the show, but did later do some research so I could appreciate it.
Overall, a well-performed play, and worth a watch, but possibly not one for a first date.
There are certain seasonal trends with West End Theatre, for example a few years ago the plays were very dark, this year it seems to be all about the film adaptations - while there's been a few shows on which have been films, typically these will rely on the original source material and perhaps reference other versions/sources. Fatal Attraction is not one of those, and proudly proclaims the origins. That said, they have managed to get the original screenwriter to pen the stage version, and this has been directed by Sir Trevor Nunn, so there's some good credentials behind the performance.
It was interesting to look around the audience for this one and see how many couples etc there were in the audience. Admittedly this was a matinee, but it did not appear to be a prominent "date play" for the theatre-goers. I wonder why...
For those of you unfamiliar with the storyline of Fatal Attraction, it follows the basic format of (married) boy meets girl, boy gets girl, girl becomes obsessed, and that's when it all starts to go very wrong, increasingly bad stuff happens, a bunny gets boiled, there's an confrontation, and the. The end. There will be potential spoilers below, you have been warned.
The overall cast of the play is strong and Natascha McElhone is clearly enjoying playing the role of Alex Forrest - there's something about that sort of flawed "villain" that no doubt makes it just the sort of role you can get your teeth into.
Without risking giving too much away, the ending of the play is much closer to the original ending of the film (not the one used in the final release) but, if anything, slightly darker. In addition, certain elements have been updated to a more modern setting regarding phones, email, and so on. People are able to stalk each other in a much more varied way than they could back when the film was made. Everyone has a phone with them, there's the internet, email, social media, oh so many ways we can keep track of what people are doing, where they are, and what they've been up to. And that's before we consider how many people post pictures of themselves, check-in to locations etc. But that's a topic for another time.
The play opens with one of the later scenes chronologically as Dan is talking with his friend Jimmy about the problem he's now having with Alex and what to do about it. Dan explains how a series of wrong decisions have led him to this moment, and then we move to the meat of the play - the majority of it taking place prior to this scene.
Of interest was how certain scenes played differently to the audience - I was sat in a place where women were either side of me, so during the scene in which Alex is talking about being pregnant to which Dan offers to pay for an abortion I was able to see how they both crossed their legs as one while using their crossed arms as an almost physical barrier to the scene. As a man this scene had a different feel to me.
The bunny boiling scene was very tastefully done, with no rabbit to be seen, merely a steaming pot.
And finally, the ending. For comparative purposes:
The final cut used in the film is fairly Hollywood where she gets killed after trying to kill him and his family.
The original film ending (not used as it scored poorly with test audiences) has her killing herself, him accused of murder, and then exonerated by a recording of her threatening to commit suicide.
This version is much closer to the film cut, with her killing herself, and him accused of the murder (his prints on the weapon, etc) - the scene ends as he is dragged away by the police. The final scene is Alex killing herself in a reference to Madame Butterfly.
There's quite a bit of Butterfly references during the play and some symbolism along the way. I confess, it was not a story I was familiar with at the start of the show, but did later do some research so I could appreciate it.
Overall, a well-performed play, and worth a watch, but possibly not one for a first date.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Theare - Into The Woods
Who/what/where: Into The Woods, Regent's Park Open Air Theatre/Digital Theatre
Digital Theatre is a clever little company that has arranged with certain theatres to film particular performances and put them online to rent/buy. Unlike most of the other digital versions of shows I own, this is not one I had seen before. As it was easily available, and was a Sondheim (which automatically makes it more appealing) I figured I would give it a whirl. The performance was filmed back in 2010.
For those of you who've been to the Regent's Park Open Air Theatre before, it's a fairly open stage. In this case they've done some pretty extensive set-design, with multiple levels and various other features.
The show is a retelling of various fairy tales intertwined within each other. The baker and his wife (Jenna Russell, cropping up in yet another musical, and another Sondheim to boot, because, well, she can, and she's very good at it too) serve to link much of it together - they're one a quest to collect certain items to lift a curse so they can have a child. Along the way they meet and interact with Cinderalla, her prince, Rapunzel, Jack (of "and the beanstalk" fame) and his cow, an interesting take on Red Riding Hood, and so on. Over the course of three nights they help each story along, advising Cinderalla, buying Jack's cow in exchange for magic beans, and so on.
The first act largely resolves itself nicely and serves as a self-contained story in and of itself. The second act builds on the events of the first though is set some time later, everyone is within their "ever after" lives, but not everyone is happy, especially not the giant (voiced by Dame Judi Dench) who has turned up (via some clever set use) to extract revenge on Jack for stealing and killing and all the things that fairy tale heroes get to do with impunity. The cast try to offer the narrator as a sacrifice, which is a nice touch. Eventually the surviving characters work together and best the giant and, once more, things appear to end happily.
As a musical, some of the tunes are not as catchy as we've seen in other Sondheim works, but there are a couple of gems along the way. Though it's not like "Merrily We Roll Along" where I had snippets of "Opening Doors" in my head for weeks afterwards, though part of that might be that I've seen that show more than once.
Digital Theatre is a clever little company that has arranged with certain theatres to film particular performances and put them online to rent/buy. Unlike most of the other digital versions of shows I own, this is not one I had seen before. As it was easily available, and was a Sondheim (which automatically makes it more appealing) I figured I would give it a whirl. The performance was filmed back in 2010.
For those of you who've been to the Regent's Park Open Air Theatre before, it's a fairly open stage. In this case they've done some pretty extensive set-design, with multiple levels and various other features.
The show is a retelling of various fairy tales intertwined within each other. The baker and his wife (Jenna Russell, cropping up in yet another musical, and another Sondheim to boot, because, well, she can, and she's very good at it too) serve to link much of it together - they're one a quest to collect certain items to lift a curse so they can have a child. Along the way they meet and interact with Cinderalla, her prince, Rapunzel, Jack (of "and the beanstalk" fame) and his cow, an interesting take on Red Riding Hood, and so on. Over the course of three nights they help each story along, advising Cinderalla, buying Jack's cow in exchange for magic beans, and so on.
The first act largely resolves itself nicely and serves as a self-contained story in and of itself. The second act builds on the events of the first though is set some time later, everyone is within their "ever after" lives, but not everyone is happy, especially not the giant (voiced by Dame Judi Dench) who has turned up (via some clever set use) to extract revenge on Jack for stealing and killing and all the things that fairy tale heroes get to do with impunity. The cast try to offer the narrator as a sacrifice, which is a nice touch. Eventually the surviving characters work together and best the giant and, once more, things appear to end happily.
As a musical, some of the tunes are not as catchy as we've seen in other Sondheim works, but there are a couple of gems along the way. Though it's not like "Merrily We Roll Along" where I had snippets of "Opening Doors" in my head for weeks afterwards, though part of that might be that I've seen that show more than once.
Theatre - A Doll's House
Who/what/where: A Doll's House, The Young Vic/Digital Theatre
The way Digital Theatre works is that they organise with certain theatres to film particular performances and put them online to rent/buy. While I am personally a big fan of seeing things live, this is really handy if you miss a show, or want to retain a copy. In this case I fall into the latter camp
I've seen this version three times now, once when it opened at The Young Vic, again at the West End transfer, and finally the digital version, which was filmed from the Young Vic run, although the transfer was a pretty solid "lift and shift" job, taking along the cast, set, etc.
Ibsen has a bit of a reputation for depressing plays, though in some ways this is at least an oversimplification, if not missing the point entirely. While I'm not saying that his subject matter is mirth and hilarity all the way, A Doll's House is actually an amusing play - there is a lot of comedy wrapped within it, which is a necessary contrast. If a play is simply dark throughout the audience becomes depressed and eventually builds a tolerance to the darkness, their night vision if you will. Throw in some moments of light and they don't adjust as easily, it makes the dark moments darker and the bright ones lighter. And that is part of what makes this play work.
It was written in the late 19th century, and, while some things have changed in that time, there is a suprising amount which has not, which (aside from the writing) will be one of the reasons this play still gets performed even now - in fact, only a few years ago it was awarded the distinction of being the world's most performed play.
Depending on the performance you can take quite different things out of the characters at different times - Torvald, for example, has provoked responses varying from "what a horrible, horrible man" to "he simply just does not know how to function in the world" and all sorts of stances in between. In many ways this is a good thing, showing how much of a difference the actor's performance on a given night and your own mindset going in can make to your experience.
The entire play takes place set within the small apartment of Torvald and Nora Helmer. Typically it takes place in one room, but in this version they'd hade an entire, cramped, apartment and st it up to revolve on stage. It both expands things out, allowing for a little more movement, and at the same time really shows just how claustrophobic an enviroment they live in - there's a scene with a conversation which now takes place in the corridor, again showing how little freedom and privacy Nora has within her own home. It's a fantastic bit of set design, and while I find internal windows a little odd, I am willing to run with it as either something I am simply unfamiliar with or just better from a setting perspective.
Nora, mother of three, wife of Torvald is our principle character, and, in many ways, that's the limit of her identity for much of the play, which is the entire point of the plot. She doesn't know who she really is, and is largely kept by her husband, who calls her various nicknames as if she were a pet, or, in fact, a doll. In the events leading up to the play she has, through fraudulent means (though she doesn't truly understand the consequences of her actions) obtained a loan in order to take the family away so that Torvald could rest and recover. She's been paying this back in secret, including using any money Torvald gives her for herself. Torvald has recovered and is doing well - he's going to be promoted at the bank in which he works and things are looking up for him.
Kristine Linde arrives seeking her old friend Nora, and Nora agrees to find her some work in the bank. Rather "forunately" Torvald has a role in mind, that belonging to an employee called Krogstad. Torvald dislikes Krogstad, in part because of his manner, but primarily because of a deed her performed in his past - he forged a signature, and has been paying for that mistake ever since, slowly trying to atone, build himself back up and restore his reputation for the sake of his children. The man is condemned by Torvald for a deed remarkably similar to one that Torvald's wife has committed.
Krogstad comes to blackmail Nora into getting him his old job back, and it is ony during this exchange that the enormity of what Nora has done, if not the realisation that it was a wrongdoing in the first place, begins to sink in for her.
Dr Rank is the other major character of the play, a family friend suffering from illness who is waiting on tests that will tell him just how long he has left to live. During the play he reveals his affections for Nora, and, perhaps because of his circumstances, he is one of the most honest and forthright characters in the play.
Some of the second act, after the Tarantella, is chopped off during this version, but it makes sense to do so, leaving on a dramatic high for the interval. This is also the one scene where they take advantage of the being a digital performance and make clever use of the camera.
In the second half of the play things escalate further, Nora's crime coming to light and Torvald taking it poorly. Once his rant is complete a letter from Krogstad arrives, releasing Nora of the debt, having reconnected with Kristine Linde, and hopefully living what passes for a happily ever after. Torvald's reaction to this is particularly telling, as it's all about "him" being saved, how "he" has escaped the grim fate, and how he forgives Nora for her misdeeds. It's after this exchange that Nora realises Torvald is not who she thought he was (and neither is she who he expected) and leaves Torvald, explaining that she needs to figure out who she is, while he is completely unable to grasp the events that are unfolding or to understand how selfish etc he appears to an observer.
As a product of the time it would not be common to look at the prevailing view of marriage in such a critical way, and this was the subject of controversy when it was first performed. While many things have progressed since then people are still people, there are still relationships like this out there, and many of the themes are as relevant now as they were then.
The way Digital Theatre works is that they organise with certain theatres to film particular performances and put them online to rent/buy. While I am personally a big fan of seeing things live, this is really handy if you miss a show, or want to retain a copy. In this case I fall into the latter camp
I've seen this version three times now, once when it opened at The Young Vic, again at the West End transfer, and finally the digital version, which was filmed from the Young Vic run, although the transfer was a pretty solid "lift and shift" job, taking along the cast, set, etc.
Ibsen has a bit of a reputation for depressing plays, though in some ways this is at least an oversimplification, if not missing the point entirely. While I'm not saying that his subject matter is mirth and hilarity all the way, A Doll's House is actually an amusing play - there is a lot of comedy wrapped within it, which is a necessary contrast. If a play is simply dark throughout the audience becomes depressed and eventually builds a tolerance to the darkness, their night vision if you will. Throw in some moments of light and they don't adjust as easily, it makes the dark moments darker and the bright ones lighter. And that is part of what makes this play work.
It was written in the late 19th century, and, while some things have changed in that time, there is a suprising amount which has not, which (aside from the writing) will be one of the reasons this play still gets performed even now - in fact, only a few years ago it was awarded the distinction of being the world's most performed play.
Depending on the performance you can take quite different things out of the characters at different times - Torvald, for example, has provoked responses varying from "what a horrible, horrible man" to "he simply just does not know how to function in the world" and all sorts of stances in between. In many ways this is a good thing, showing how much of a difference the actor's performance on a given night and your own mindset going in can make to your experience.
The entire play takes place set within the small apartment of Torvald and Nora Helmer. Typically it takes place in one room, but in this version they'd hade an entire, cramped, apartment and st it up to revolve on stage. It both expands things out, allowing for a little more movement, and at the same time really shows just how claustrophobic an enviroment they live in - there's a scene with a conversation which now takes place in the corridor, again showing how little freedom and privacy Nora has within her own home. It's a fantastic bit of set design, and while I find internal windows a little odd, I am willing to run with it as either something I am simply unfamiliar with or just better from a setting perspective.
Nora, mother of three, wife of Torvald is our principle character, and, in many ways, that's the limit of her identity for much of the play, which is the entire point of the plot. She doesn't know who she really is, and is largely kept by her husband, who calls her various nicknames as if she were a pet, or, in fact, a doll. In the events leading up to the play she has, through fraudulent means (though she doesn't truly understand the consequences of her actions) obtained a loan in order to take the family away so that Torvald could rest and recover. She's been paying this back in secret, including using any money Torvald gives her for herself. Torvald has recovered and is doing well - he's going to be promoted at the bank in which he works and things are looking up for him.
Kristine Linde arrives seeking her old friend Nora, and Nora agrees to find her some work in the bank. Rather "forunately" Torvald has a role in mind, that belonging to an employee called Krogstad. Torvald dislikes Krogstad, in part because of his manner, but primarily because of a deed her performed in his past - he forged a signature, and has been paying for that mistake ever since, slowly trying to atone, build himself back up and restore his reputation for the sake of his children. The man is condemned by Torvald for a deed remarkably similar to one that Torvald's wife has committed.
Krogstad comes to blackmail Nora into getting him his old job back, and it is ony during this exchange that the enormity of what Nora has done, if not the realisation that it was a wrongdoing in the first place, begins to sink in for her.
Dr Rank is the other major character of the play, a family friend suffering from illness who is waiting on tests that will tell him just how long he has left to live. During the play he reveals his affections for Nora, and, perhaps because of his circumstances, he is one of the most honest and forthright characters in the play.
Some of the second act, after the Tarantella, is chopped off during this version, but it makes sense to do so, leaving on a dramatic high for the interval. This is also the one scene where they take advantage of the being a digital performance and make clever use of the camera.
In the second half of the play things escalate further, Nora's crime coming to light and Torvald taking it poorly. Once his rant is complete a letter from Krogstad arrives, releasing Nora of the debt, having reconnected with Kristine Linde, and hopefully living what passes for a happily ever after. Torvald's reaction to this is particularly telling, as it's all about "him" being saved, how "he" has escaped the grim fate, and how he forgives Nora for her misdeeds. It's after this exchange that Nora realises Torvald is not who she thought he was (and neither is she who he expected) and leaves Torvald, explaining that she needs to figure out who she is, while he is completely unable to grasp the events that are unfolding or to understand how selfish etc he appears to an observer.
As a product of the time it would not be common to look at the prevailing view of marriage in such a critical way, and this was the subject of controversy when it was first performed. While many things have progressed since then people are still people, there are still relationships like this out there, and many of the themes are as relevant now as they were then.
Saturday, March 08, 2014
Theatre - Urinetown
Who/what/where: Urinetown, St James Theatre
What's on Stage do several group outings over the course of the year, usually offering a reduced-price ticcket and some goodies. In this case it was a drinks voucher and a post-show meet and greet with the cast.
The St James Theatre is a fairly new venue, and sits outside the West End. It's close to Victoria and, having only opened in 2012, is a very modern theatre. The main theatre has capacity for a few hundred with some very steep seating. Unless the person in front of you is about three feet taller than you, you are unlikely to have an obstructed view. Below the main theatre is a studio venue, capable of seating a smaller number of people, but proving to be a nice environment for the smaller, more intimate, shows like Barbershopera.
Urinetown is not your typical musical, and therefore, despite how good it is, it's not one you get to see very often - this is the UK premiere of the show in fact. Part of the reason for this will be covered in the spoilery section of this article. The setting is fairly dark, a dystopian world where water is a scarce resource and one man, Caldwell B. Cladwell, holds the monopoly on public toilets, charging for these earns him a fortune and he has a scheme to become richer still. Plus there's a bit of blood, which may put off some audience members.
The public object to the fee increases, and soon a full-blown riot ensues, led by the hero of the piece, Bobby Strong, who feels gulty over his actions earlier in the show. Naturally, there's a love interest, in this case Hope Cladwell, the daughter of the show's antagonist.
The show is more than capably narrated by Johnathan Slinger (in his first musical role) as Office Lockstock, a deliciously cynical character who provides several moments of self-referential humour, giving exposition while at the same time criticising musicals that give lots of exposition. Several of these scenes take place with Little Sally, explaining information to her, and through that, to the audience.
There is a lot going on, and the two wardrobe people must have a hell of a job performing quick-change acts on a cast of around twenty. There's a fairly elaborate set, the show frequently taking place on one of two levels on stage, sometimes both. And, as an added bonus, part of the stage can revolve.
The show is presently in previews, having been open only a week and a half when I saw it. It's due to run until the 3rd of May and I absolutely recommend that not only do you get yourself a ticket, but that you get me one too as I could definitely cope with seeing it again. The night I went to see it was a sell-out. We had a last-minute cancellation and returned a ticket about 45 minutes before the show and they managed to sell it without a problem. As such we ended up next to and chatting with a lovely American girl who was studying musical theatre.
Here beginneth the spoilers.
----------------------------
There's a couple of plot twists which are relatively expected, such as the identity of Hope's mother, but it's a rare show which will kill off the main character two-thirds of the way through the show. At that point Hope takes over the rebellion, leads them into killing her father, and allows free peeing for everyone. Unfortunately, that doesnt end so well as the water dries up thanks to this unrestricted usage, and pretty much everyone ends up dying anyway. So not the happiest of musicals, but they do warn us of that, and it is very fitting for the show.
----------------------------
In short, go see it.
What's on Stage do several group outings over the course of the year, usually offering a reduced-price ticcket and some goodies. In this case it was a drinks voucher and a post-show meet and greet with the cast.
The St James Theatre is a fairly new venue, and sits outside the West End. It's close to Victoria and, having only opened in 2012, is a very modern theatre. The main theatre has capacity for a few hundred with some very steep seating. Unless the person in front of you is about three feet taller than you, you are unlikely to have an obstructed view. Below the main theatre is a studio venue, capable of seating a smaller number of people, but proving to be a nice environment for the smaller, more intimate, shows like Barbershopera.
Urinetown is not your typical musical, and therefore, despite how good it is, it's not one you get to see very often - this is the UK premiere of the show in fact. Part of the reason for this will be covered in the spoilery section of this article. The setting is fairly dark, a dystopian world where water is a scarce resource and one man, Caldwell B. Cladwell, holds the monopoly on public toilets, charging for these earns him a fortune and he has a scheme to become richer still. Plus there's a bit of blood, which may put off some audience members.
The public object to the fee increases, and soon a full-blown riot ensues, led by the hero of the piece, Bobby Strong, who feels gulty over his actions earlier in the show. Naturally, there's a love interest, in this case Hope Cladwell, the daughter of the show's antagonist.
The show is more than capably narrated by Johnathan Slinger (in his first musical role) as Office Lockstock, a deliciously cynical character who provides several moments of self-referential humour, giving exposition while at the same time criticising musicals that give lots of exposition. Several of these scenes take place with Little Sally, explaining information to her, and through that, to the audience.
There is a lot going on, and the two wardrobe people must have a hell of a job performing quick-change acts on a cast of around twenty. There's a fairly elaborate set, the show frequently taking place on one of two levels on stage, sometimes both. And, as an added bonus, part of the stage can revolve.
The show is presently in previews, having been open only a week and a half when I saw it. It's due to run until the 3rd of May and I absolutely recommend that not only do you get yourself a ticket, but that you get me one too as I could definitely cope with seeing it again. The night I went to see it was a sell-out. We had a last-minute cancellation and returned a ticket about 45 minutes before the show and they managed to sell it without a problem. As such we ended up next to and chatting with a lovely American girl who was studying musical theatre.
Here beginneth the spoilers.
----------------------------
There's a couple of plot twists which are relatively expected, such as the identity of Hope's mother, but it's a rare show which will kill off the main character two-thirds of the way through the show. At that point Hope takes over the rebellion, leads them into killing her father, and allows free peeing for everyone. Unfortunately, that doesnt end so well as the water dries up thanks to this unrestricted usage, and pretty much everyone ends up dying anyway. So not the happiest of musicals, but they do warn us of that, and it is very fitting for the show.
----------------------------
In short, go see it.
Sunday, March 02, 2014
Theatre - Merrily We Roll Along
Who/what/where: Merrily We Roll Along, Harold Pinter Theatre/Digital Theatre
The folks at Digital Theatre have a fine idea, organising with the theatre to film certain performances and put them online to rent/buy. They were also behind the live performances of Noel Coward's Private Lives making their way to cinemas recently. It's great if you miss a show, or want to retain a copy, but there's just something about the experience of seeing the shows live that a digital version just cannot capture.
I've seen this version of Merrily We Roll Along three times now, once when it opened at The Menier Chocolate Factory, again at The Harold Pinter Theatre in May 2013, and finally the digital version, so it's a show I've developed a little familiarity with. Plus, your week is almost always improved with a little bit of Stephen Sondheim's work in your life.
Mark Umbers is Franklin Shepard, Jenna Russell, always good value in a musical, gives a fine performance as Mary Flynn, and Damian Humbley is Charles Kringas.
Merrily We Roll Along is a Sondheim musical based upon a play. The show opens at a party in the 70s and, with each scene, moves backward through key moments within the life of Franklin Shepard = initially showing him as a wealthy, but ultimately not that happy, film producer and leading back through how he got to that position, all but abandoning his composing work to get there. Travelling backwards through his life and that of his friends we see him work on a hit musical, live as a penniless composer, marry his lead actress twice and finally go back to the him, in his early 20s, meeting what will become his closest friends.
The simple act of reversing the timeline puts the audience's emotional roller-coaster into reverse with it. Were it to go in a simple chronological order they might otherwise leave drained at watching Fanklin slowly change into the man he becomes, the friends he drifts away from, and the idea that he may make the same mistakes again, potentially marrying his lead actress for a third time. The references to the New York play written by Charles Kringas imply that he stuck to his principles, finished the show he wanted to do with Franklin and that things worked out for him in the end, so it doesn't end poorly for everybody. However, doing it this way round lets the show end on a much more positive note, optimistic about the future and the opportunities it will offer, plus introduces Evelyn, who will become Kringas' wife - giving the audience a further reason to smile at the end.
You can see how each decision led into the next and, as the play progresses, unpick the key turning points of his life. Would a small change in certain decisions make a huge difference to his life? Undoubtedly. Would the show be as interesting if he'd made the right ones? No. Can the audience learn from his actions? I'd hope so, catch up with friends, think about what you're aiming for, what you'll compromise for what benefit, and what decisions you've already made.
Its a fine show and well worth viewing.
The folks at Digital Theatre have a fine idea, organising with the theatre to film certain performances and put them online to rent/buy. They were also behind the live performances of Noel Coward's Private Lives making their way to cinemas recently. It's great if you miss a show, or want to retain a copy, but there's just something about the experience of seeing the shows live that a digital version just cannot capture.
I've seen this version of Merrily We Roll Along three times now, once when it opened at The Menier Chocolate Factory, again at The Harold Pinter Theatre in May 2013, and finally the digital version, so it's a show I've developed a little familiarity with. Plus, your week is almost always improved with a little bit of Stephen Sondheim's work in your life.
Mark Umbers is Franklin Shepard, Jenna Russell, always good value in a musical, gives a fine performance as Mary Flynn, and Damian Humbley is Charles Kringas.
Merrily We Roll Along is a Sondheim musical based upon a play. The show opens at a party in the 70s and, with each scene, moves backward through key moments within the life of Franklin Shepard = initially showing him as a wealthy, but ultimately not that happy, film producer and leading back through how he got to that position, all but abandoning his composing work to get there. Travelling backwards through his life and that of his friends we see him work on a hit musical, live as a penniless composer, marry his lead actress twice and finally go back to the him, in his early 20s, meeting what will become his closest friends.
The simple act of reversing the timeline puts the audience's emotional roller-coaster into reverse with it. Were it to go in a simple chronological order they might otherwise leave drained at watching Fanklin slowly change into the man he becomes, the friends he drifts away from, and the idea that he may make the same mistakes again, potentially marrying his lead actress for a third time. The references to the New York play written by Charles Kringas imply that he stuck to his principles, finished the show he wanted to do with Franklin and that things worked out for him in the end, so it doesn't end poorly for everybody. However, doing it this way round lets the show end on a much more positive note, optimistic about the future and the opportunities it will offer, plus introduces Evelyn, who will become Kringas' wife - giving the audience a further reason to smile at the end.
You can see how each decision led into the next and, as the play progresses, unpick the key turning points of his life. Would a small change in certain decisions make a huge difference to his life? Undoubtedly. Would the show be as interesting if he'd made the right ones? No. Can the audience learn from his actions? I'd hope so, catch up with friends, think about what you're aiming for, what you'll compromise for what benefit, and what decisions you've already made.
Its a fine show and well worth viewing.
