4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 28, 2018 10:45:46 GMT
Yes! It’s about hypocrisy - there’s a reason why it is called Measure for Measure.
But my, the ‘who will believe you?’ bits do feel painfully contemporary - in both directions. I felt awful for Angelo and it did remind me of instances where men were expected to laugh off harassment and even sexual assaults by women.
But the humiliation of Isabel, in the modern context, did seem more intense than for Angelo. What she does to Angelo is no less awful than what Angelo does to her, but the repercussions do seem worse.
Again, that’s a deliberate effect of the cutting - if I recall the original correctly Angelo is chastened and expected to soften his Puritanism and eventually become a more worthy judge who could eventually succeed the Duke. I can’t imagine a scenario in the modern context where Isabel could successfully take power again.
All in all a really interesting and thought-provoking production.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 29, 2018 18:59:41 GMT
We were the opposite side of the stalls from you, then.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 30, 2018 15:45:04 GMT
Well it was over wasn't it? I would not have known there was another go at it but for this Board. I didn't see reviews and I don't think everyone does look at reviews.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 30, 2018 15:53:47 GMT
But that's why they repeat the first scene as exactly as possible (book-drop, exits and all) before the interval - to signal that it's not over and is starting again. Plus the signs on the stairs saying that there's an interval and the ushers setting up with the ice creams is a bit of a hint....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 16:02:10 GMT
If they don't come back out and bow, it ain't over. Admittedly that gets sticky when you're seeing a double-bill and you've gone a bit loopy and it's one of those double-bills where they won't bow until the end of Part 2 so you don't know if you're safe to go and get dinner or if this is just a toilet break, but it was a fairly reliable indicator of where we were at during the RSC Histories cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 16:04:03 GMT
Actually, I do hear tell of ushers at certain Sondheim shows (mostly Into The Woods and Sunday In The Park With George) being stationed at the exits during the interval to make sure people heading for the door know there's more, I bet the Donmar did the same. Especially as it's reasonably common practice for theatres to have ushers at the exits during the interval to let smokers know they'll need their ticket to get back in the building, and the Donmar is currently operating with only one exit. (Let me use the fire exit at the end of the show, damnit! That was a useful thing you used to do!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 17:37:45 GMT
If they don't come back out and bow, it ain't over. Admittedly that gets sticky when you're seeing a double-bill and you've gone a bit loopy and it's one of those double-bills where they won't bow until the end of Part 2 so you don't know if you're safe to go and get dinner or if this is just a toilet break, but it was a fairly reliable indicator of where we were at during the RSC Histories cycle. Or it's Pinter 1 where they all bow at the end of the first half and then there's another bloomin' bit for the second half. I almost got caught out by that one and had my coat on heading for the exit until I realised the bar was still open.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 31, 2018 9:27:29 GMT
Josie Rourke mentioned last night something that I thought my ear had caught - the actors speak the verse differently in the 2 different settings. I really noticed the difference in clarity of both words and intent in the second half, when the lines are spoken naturistically, but thought maybe it was just my ear 'tuning' in on the second go-around.
So it's not just a traditional dress/setting in the first half, it's a traditional performance style as well. I wonder if that is why Isabel seems more sympathetic than Angelo? Would we feel more sympathy for an Angelo who was performed naturalistically in the first half?
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 3, 2018 20:28:46 GMT
Josie Rourke mentioned last night something that I thought my ear had caught - the actors speak the verse differently in the 2 different settings. I really noticed the difference in clarity of both words and intent in the second half, when the lines are spoken naturistically, but thought maybe it was just my ear 'tuning' in on the second go-around. So it's not just a traditional dress/setting in the first half, it's a traditional performance style as well. I wonder if that is why Isabel seems more sympathetic than Angelo? Would we feel more sympathy for an Angelo who was performed naturalistically in the first half? Interesting. I noted the difference, particularly around Claudio/Angelo scenes, lines really came across quite differently but hadn't thought about it effecting how I responded to the characters. I love the first half, would I think quite happily have watched Hayley Atwell do that all again but it was, quite happy to see her after a bash at the other role. There were bits that didn't make a lot of sense played second time round, would it not have been simpler if Angelo had been a trainee priest? but ignoring that as the play clearly had to fit into the ideas they were exploring and it didn't bother me that much this did all seem uncomfortably relevant. I've seen a few Measure for Measures and have struggled somewhat with Isabella's character especially early on, but, possibly benefiting from cuts, here her character seemed more fleshed out, ironically since it was a cut play, than just chaste would be nun. The scene where Angelo finally spells it all was just harrowing, echoes of too many modern equivalents. And my the Duke is so manipulative and creepy. Yes second time round I did respond differently to a man being preyed upon than a woman, but I wondered just how many men had found themselves in a similar situation and what kind of a reaction they'd have got if they spoke out, I found the scenes equally uncomfortable. For me either way Isabella seemed the loser, the audio humiliation that her would be husband played out being particularly cruel. So not without problems but I found myself grinning in the dark and thinking this is why I do theatre, always a good sign.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 3, 2018 20:42:18 GMT
Seemed very relevant to #metoo with abuse of power and the lines where Angelo says no-one will believe Isabelle....plus the feeling that hurray, she is safe, only for the next predator to come forth! I am constantly amazed at how naive people are today about how abuse of position works....”why did she not say anything when the boss bullied her” ...down to the allocation of new universal credit to one member of a household not being a problem “as it can be requested to be split” not being a problem with abusive relationships..... So yes, i enjoyed this one. I could have done without the light reflecting off the shiny floor right into my eyes for a good part of the play!
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Nov 22, 2018 20:45:03 GMT
It flags a bit in the second act of the contemporary take but the transition from period to current is up there with Potter for a bit of theatre magic
|
|