Wild Duck-Almeida theatre

I could certainly imagine Sonia Friedman bringing this into the Harold Pinter or Duke of York's in the New Year.

Like many here I found the first half awful - the drama of the play constantly undercut by Icke levering in bits of an A Level essay he'd written on the play. I think the main problem with that was that he's just not much of a playwright and his additions were variously dull and incoherent. It's arrogant too, because as an audience we don't need to be spoon-fed a commentary on the themes of the play because we can work them out for ourselves just by watching the play as written. If Rupert Goold had been sent this script by an established playwright he'd have either chucked it in the bin or insisted on massive re-writes, Icke was obviously totally unable to self-edit the piece so Goold should have done something about it. I got the strong impression Icke's success has gone to his head and he's lapsed into self-indulgence.


In the second half however, with fewer self-penned interruptions, I was reminded what a very very good director Icke is - he really should have just directed the play as written (or updated). It's a great play of course, Grandage's definitive Donmar version stands alone, and Simon Stone's updating was good too. 

Best child acting I've seen for a long time (not sure which of the two credited actors it was unfortunately). Also a pleasure to see the expert Nicholas Farrell on stage again after many years.

Oh, and just a note to Icke's agent, in a few sections of the play Icke speculates (and presents as fact) the influence that some elements of Ibsen's own private life had on his art. There can be no complaint then if we do that with Icke too.

For some of the stuff to work in the second half in relation to breaking out of the fourth wall or interrupting asides, you need to have the fourth wall stuff and asides established in the 1st act. As a whole, I think it works.

The icke/Ibsen comparison is different, since Ibsen is dead of course, as his any of his family. Historical speculation is rather different to speculation on a living person.

I loved this production. As I said somewhere above the “lecture” at the beginning reflects Ibsen’s rather expository method in the original play where we are told the whole backstory by a couple of characters in the play’s opening moments. I love the interpolation of Ibsen’s life into the mix because it complicates the way you relate to the play and I found myself reflecting on the relationship between art and life and the fact that there is no simple correlation. I may be wrong but I think Ibsen’s child with the servant may have been a boy, not a girl. If this is the case then Icke might be playing with us even more than we think, although I admit that he could have finessed this. Icke has now made me obsessed with this play which I hadn’t read since I was a child. By the way I am dying to know what people were saying about Icke on here. Will someone either DM me or risk the wrath of the moderators and give me an update.

Absolutely, and personal vendettas from ‘insiders’ under the cloak of anonymity have no place here. Especially as their arrogance places the moderators in a terrible position and the board as a whole in a precarious one. 

There is a lot of class snobbery involved, as he doesn’t lie low and relate to and kowtow to his ‘betters’ as us working class oiks are supposed to. The idea that he is ‘compensating’ is particularly typical of that mindset, although, I suppose, in a business where our greatest playwright is thought of as not being clever enough (through his upbringing) to have written his works what can you expect?

Anyway, I’m seeing it today. 

Well he went to a comprehensive as opposed to the independent educated Hall (albeit as a scholarship pupil) or grammar school educated Nunn. It makes a big difference and makes any route to Oxbridge less open. How education changes may have weakened social mobility is another discussion, though.

I very much agree on the envy and Regietheater aspect (see David Hare etc.). How such directors build a group of trusted performers is also irksome to those not ‘chosen’ (see Rice, Mitchell, McBurney etc).

Particularly interesting that in an addition that is entirely Icke's - not in the original at all - he specifically calls out left-wing politics as trading in lies and being detached from the real world. A proposition you don't often see on stage. 

The child actor I saw as Hedvig in this production was terrific.

Some trivia for you: When Bette Davis was young, she was taken to a production of 'The Wild Duck' in Boston. A young actress called Peg Entwistle played Hedvig and Davis said it was that performance that made her determined to become an actress.

And Peg Entwistle went on to a certain sad fame herself - after a series of setbacks in her acting career, she was the first person to throw themselves off the 'Hollywood' sign.

Edit:  Editing to add the above sounded more ominous than I meant it to!  Most Hedvigs go on to long and happy  lives I'm sure.  It was Sinead Matthews at the Donmar in 2005 (weirdly, in my memory I had thought it was Felicity Jones - what was I thinking of?)

Felicity Jones was in Schiller's Luise Miller at the Donmar, but that was 2011, not 2005!

Oh my giddy aunt - I rather think you are ALL right. Somehow I conflated The Chalk Garden (I remember Jones was playing very young) and Luise Miller(which I have pretty much no recollection of except for Higgins - though again - I thought HE was the The Wild Duck, but no, that was Paul Hilton - and the dress that Jones wore, but I checked back and yes, I had tickets for that and think now I rather recall liking Alex Kingston in it) and turned them into a single production of The Wild Duck. My only excuse is that there was a period of my life when I was working 60 hours week which is a bit of a blur.

But thanks for your detective work!

What an odd sign. Wonder what it refers to