4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Nov 27, 2020 8:55:58 GMT
Idea nicked from Jan"Oh there's plenty of tedious masterpieces .... Cyrano de Bergerac, King Lear, The Way of the World, A Moon for the Misbegotten, Mother Courage, Bartholomew Fair, Playboy of the Western World, Man and Superman, Don Carlos, Peer Gynt, anything from the Spanish Golden Age, Oedipus at Colonos, The House of Bernarda Alba, Knight of the Burning Pestle ... and many more" So what are yours and why do we bother? I'm putting Shakespeares History Plays, Phantom, Cats, Anything by Wagner and Don Giovanni - I guess I've seen them because I've heard about them and want to see what the fuss is about. On first viewing you think you don't get it and then on the second you just think Why? |
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Nov 27, 2020 9:23:36 GMT
In some people's minds I'm sure I deserve to be shunned for saying this, but Chekhov. I have only seen two of his plays: The Cherry Orchard and Uncle Vanya but I am clear that they are not for me. I left the theatre angry after the Cherry Orchard because I felt the play I had seen was completely unrelated to the story Chekhov wanted me to think about. Uncle Vanya was one of the most painful theatre experiences of my life. I saw the recent version at the Pinter and by all accounts this was excellent, so I think if I can't like that, I can't like anything.
It frustrates me when I dislike something that other people love. The experience of really loving something at the theatre is like no other so I want to replicate that and sometimes I will see things I hated more than once to try and see what I'm missing.
Oh also Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream. Ridiculous, rather than tedious, and I can't suspend disbelief.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 27, 2020 9:31:50 GMT
I agree with Checkov - I've never seen a production of The Cherry Orchard that wasn't tedious.
Though I have enjoyed Ivanov a couple of times, so I started to wonder if it was mature Checkov I didn't like, and if I should keep trying with his younger work.
The thing is, when people rave about how good something is and you just don't get it, it's very tempting to keep trying.
I will probably watch the Uncle Vanya on the BBC even though I know I probably won't enjoy it!
Eh, why do we do it to ourselves?
For me the Shakespeare I find tedious is Macbeth. I always blame it on having learn the play forward and backwards for GCSE English and having squeezed any actual interest out of it, but I still love King Lear, which I did the same with for A Level, so I think the truth is it's just not a very interesting play. It's got no real subtlety - too propagandist.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on Nov 27, 2020 9:45:23 GMT
"Oh there's plenty of tedious masterpieces .... The House of Bernarda Alba ... and many more" So what are yours and why do we bother? About 30 years ago it was The House of Bernarda Alba that got me love theatre. The story telling ability of the theatre setting just hooked me after that performance. I have not seen it since and I wonder whether I would be now disappointed. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2020 10:27:39 GMT
I'm putting ... Phantom, Cats ... As far as musicals are concerned, for me it was Sunset Boulevard and Miss Saigon. I never got engaged by either of them.
For literature it would be Bleak House. I tried to start it twice and eventually decided that I had more interesting things to do than waste my time reading that book, or even looking at it.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 27, 2020 13:31:02 GMT
If you can’t suspend disbelief vickyg, I do not see how you can enjoy any theatre. The very act of acting on stage in any time setting is false. Only monologues or real life, time conversations would be ok? I’m puzzled.
Helen Mirren has just been criticised for saying that we should get kids to experience Shakespeare first in the theatre before school as so often school ruins it for us. But I agree with her. A good production will intrigue the kids and mostly they won’t notice that they don’t get every line.
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Nov 27, 2020 13:43:19 GMT
I agree with the anti-Chekhov posts, although I probably don't find him tedious so much as very depressing. By the time I got to the end of The Seagull I felt I'd be happy to shoot myself along with whichever of the morbid characters had just done so. The ending of Uncle Vanya I found almost unbearably depressing. The only other Chekhov I've seen is the short Swansong, which from what I remember was 15 minutes of unleavened misery that felt more like 2 hours. Basically, if I want to be stunningly depressed I can read the new a lot more cheaply than the price of a theatre ticket!
In terms of pure tedium, the play that first comes to mind is End of the Rainbow. Despite a good cast, by the time it was approaching the interval I was willing Judy Garland to just throw herself out of the window, as she'd been repeatedly threatening to do, & spare us Act 2!
In some cases different adaptations or productions of the same source material manage to vary wildly in tedium levels. There are several Shakespeare plays I'd not want to sit through as plays but I've enjoyed opera or ballet versions: Otello, Romeo & Juliet, Falstaff. Conversely, Much Ado About Nothing is my favourite Shakespeare play but I found Berlioz's operatic version disappointing. Macbeth I didn't enjoy as either a play or an opera. Kiss Me Kate is far more fun than Taming of the Shrew. In non-Shakespeare, one of the dullest evening's I've spent at my local theatre was a play adaptation of Woman in White but I enjoyed ALW's musical version a few years later. Handel operas for me range from brilliant to hours of tedium based far more on how much I enjoy the productions than the merits of the music of the individual operas. In fact many operas I find range from amazing & tearjerking music to tedium in a single piece. Highlights CDs are a great invention!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 27, 2020 14:56:17 GMT
I suppose I stretched the envelope a bit to include Peer Gynt because I doubt there’s anyone who would regard it as a masterpiece in the first place. But it’s frequently produced. It’s far from the worst Ibsen though - The Emperor and Galilean is catastrophically bad and so are a few other of his very early plays. Bad plays by great authors is a different thread.
I don’t often go to musicals but I thought Blood Brothers (original production) was quite awful and an insult to the intelligence.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 27, 2020 17:05:07 GMT
If you can’t suspend disbelief vickyg, I do not see how you can enjoy any theatre. The very act of acting on stage in any time setting is false. Only monologues or real life, time conversations would be ok? I’m puzzled. Helen Mirren has just been criticised for saying that we should get kids to experience Shakespeare first in the theatre before school as so often school ruins it for us. But I agree with her. A good production will intrigue the kids and mostly they won’t notice that they don’t get every line. Haven't seen that so I wondered if she's being reproved for being elitist and assuming all kids can access theatre because I'd generally agree with her, school pretty much ruined every book I ever studied, minimised them to just one meaning a few quotes and that was that and I was meant to be at a fairly decent school. Only through watching Shakespeare have I learnt to love it and yes not notice the bits I don't understand so much if it's done well. Was given a very Pinter excerpts at school pre university interview, had no idea what I was meant to be understanding or seeing, still quite frequently baffled by Pinter in the theatre but now understand that, that is okay. I did for some years think Chekhov wasn't for me having seen a few productions that I really didn't get on with, then saw one I loved and thought it might be worth a re visit and have since had a much better time. But think it can be terrible if done badly, nothing happens and what is the point? I'm not sure about Beckett, it makes me really depressed. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 27, 2020 17:07:07 GMT
Not convinced by the Comedy of Errors, seen once and loathed, would take a lot to tempt me back.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 27, 2020 17:08:58 GMT
Sorry should formulate my thoughts better and post once. As a teen I kept being told to read classics and came to the conclusion that they were the type of book people had on the shelves to look clever or educated or something but never actually read, I haven't entirely changed my mind as an adult. Are some 'classic' theatre the same? The things you tick off your list but then think thank goodness I never have to see that again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2020 18:08:55 GMT
For me the Shakespeare I find tedious is Macbeth. I always blame it on having learn the play forward and backwards for GCSE English and having squeezed any actual interest out of it, but I still love King Lear, which I did the same with for A Level, so I think the truth is it's just not a very interesting play. It's got no real subtlety - too propagandist. . Totally agree about Macbeth. I do think it’s one of the easiest of his plays to follow and that probably has a lot to do with its popularity. To be honest I think all of Shakespeare’s plays can be tedious at times - mostly towards the end, when the story finished 20 minutes before the play does. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 27, 2020 18:25:48 GMT
Was given a very Pinter excerpts at school pre university interview, had no idea what I was meant to be understanding or seeing, still quite frequently baffled by Pinter in the theatre but now understand that, that is okay. I always think that Pinter appeals to people who really like theatre of all types and have seen a lot of it, just as jazz appeals to people who really like music of all types and have heard a lot of it. You need to know the conventions to appreciate the references. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2020 18:38:57 GMT
Sorry should formulate my thoughts better and post once. As a teen I kept being told to read classics and came to the conclusion that they were the type of book people had on the shelves to look clever or educated or something but never actually read, I haven't entirely changed my mind as an adult. Are some 'classic' theatre the same? The things you tick off your list but then think thank goodness I never have to see that again. I think the thing about the classics for me - be it books, plays or cinema - is that a good story is always going to be a good story... just sometimes the wrong person is telling them for me to be interested. For example, I can’t stand reading Dickens (dull and boring) but his stories come alive on stage, on film or on TV. Shakespeare is another one - great stories but an audience needs to see great Shakespearean actors to bring them to life. It even extends to music really - Christmas is upon us and we all know we’ll hear Michael Bublé singing traditional songs written hundreds of years ago. |
|
494 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nick on Nov 27, 2020 18:57:35 GMT
For me the Shakespeare I find tedious is Macbeth. I always blame it on having learn the play forward and backwards for GCSE English and having squeezed any actual interest out of it, but I still love King Lear, which I did the same with for A Level, so I think the truth is it's just not a very interesting play. It's got no real subtlety - too propagandist. . Totally agree about Macbeth. I do think it’s one of the easiest of his plays to follow and that probably has a lot to do with its popularity. To be honest I think all of Shakespeare’s plays can be tedious at times - mostly towards the end, when the story finished 20 minutes before the play does. I'm glad it's not just me. Another reason it's done a lot is that it has a strong female part so there is a chance to cast a decent female 'name'. |
|
|
|
Post by originalconceptlive on Nov 27, 2020 20:47:17 GMT
For example, I can’t stand reading Dickens (dull and boring) but his stories come alive on stage, on film or on TV. Shakespeare is another one - great stories but an audience needs to see great Shakespearean actors to bring them to life. I find the same thing with Jane Austen. When reading her books, I enjoy the soap opera parts - declarations of love and all that - but then you get another 20 pages of "A went for a pleasant walk with B and found them to be a most amiable companion" or some such. I also find that stage/film adaptations convey the humour of the stories better for me. For example, on the page, a character might be depicted as being pompous by giving them an uninterrupted two-page speech; but on film, that speech can be intercut with reactions from other characters as they strive to remain polite, which I find more amusing. On the positive side, I've found it comforting that so many classics have enjoyably lowbrow components when I actually read/watch them. Swan Lake is about an evil twin. War and Peace, in part at least, is pretty much a soap opera. Certain classic operas and Shakespeare plays, the list goes on. |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 27, 2020 22:29:17 GMT
A tedious play is play that lasts 2hr and seems like 8hr.
A great play is one that lasts 8hr and seems like 2hr.
Angels in America springs to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 28, 2020 9:34:38 GMT
. Totally agree about Macbeth. I do think it’s one of the easiest of his plays to follow and that probably has a lot to do with its popularity. To be honest I think all of Shakespeare’s plays can be tedious at times - mostly towards the end, when the story finished 20 minutes before the play does. I'm glad it's not just me. Another reason it's done a lot is that it has a strong female part so there is a chance to cast a decent female 'name'. One reason it gets done a lot is that it's frequently set as a school GCSE text and the reason for that is because it's short and the reason for that is that there's scenes missing. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 28, 2020 9:37:08 GMT
A tedious play is play that lasts 2hr and seems like 8hr. A great play is one that lasts 8hr and seems like 2hr. Angels in America springs to mind. Also a great production can rescue almost any play. The Trevor Nunn "Othello" ran over 4hrs but it didn't feel long. |
|
|
|
Post by marob on Nov 28, 2020 13:01:47 GMT
I saw a production of Playboy of the Western World by a bunch of recent drama school graduates. Can't fault them, but I was so bored by the play. Not helped by the theatre's brochure using a photo from a different production that made it look like a "jet set" kind of playboy, so it was definitely not what I was expecting.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 28, 2020 14:53:44 GMT
I'm glad it's not just me. Another reason it's done a lot is that it has a strong female part so there is a chance to cast a decent female 'name'. One reason it gets done a lot is that it's frequently set as a school GCSE text and the reason for that is because it's short and the reason for that is that there's scenes missing. Oh, I didn't realise that! Do we know where they were meant to be and what they were meant to do? (I realise this is probably something I could Google...) |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Nov 28, 2020 16:01:02 GMT
There is the idea that there should be a scene between M and LM when he mentions that he fancies being king and he will have to get rid of Duncan and his sons (tho in Scotland the king was elected not ness hereditary so M when thinks he is about to be named but Duncan names his son, M has no choice but to preempt) . Also confusions about how many go after Banquo, who is the other guy? So yes, possible scenes missed or lost or maybe Shakespeare just thought they would be boring! M not my fave Willy but I do think it would be more interesting if it were taught better. Sorry, guys and I include myself here as I did teach it once or twice. What is really fascinating is how it is a play meant to flatter James I who believed in witches even after this belief was waning in England and who thought he was descended from Banquo. He apparently we are told, saw this play so the scene in which the witches show the descendants of Banquo, through son Fleance, would actually end with the king himself sitting there.. just think about the drama of that, the break in the fourth wall , the intake of breath of the audience as they ‘get it’ and not tell me that our Willy is a brilliant stage man, genius. And the anti catholic stance is also not much mentioned but drives the play in the underlying fear of being ‘found out’ by saying the wrong thing ( very contemporary for us too) in the scene between Malcolm and Macduff near the end. Genius.
Having said all that, sorry..I haven seen a really good production of this play. Nearest was the Slinger M at RSC where they used children in a scary way. We aren’t scared of witches these days, they are fun, dressing up , Harry P at the worst, stuff but we are scared of aberrant children and of abuse of children. So that worked quite well.
|
|
494 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by nick on Nov 28, 2020 17:47:55 GMT
I’ve been teaching it recently hence my dislike! So I’ve been looking at different recorded productions. I thought both the most accessible and entertaining one is the Patrick Stewart version. I almost enjoyed it. The worst was a three part BBC Schools version from 1958 but I guess that isn’t too surprising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 28, 2020 17:57:20 GMT
I saw a production of Playboy of the Western World by a bunch of recent drama school graduates. Can't fault them, but I was so bored by the play. I saw a production of it years ago at the Riverside Studios - Lindsay Anderson directing, so a good standard. I thought it was a very inconsequential dull play. But I'm not Irish - I think it probably means much more if you are. I had a similar reaction to "Our Town" at the Almeida - this is a major American classic which is revived all the time over there but my reaction was "Is that it ?". Don Carlos too I think, you have to be German. Macbeth - the Patrick Stewart one unsurpassed, I saw it in the Minerva at Chichester, quite unsettling in a small space. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 28, 2020 18:01:39 GMT
There is the idea that there should be a scene between M and LM when he mentions that he fancies being king and he will have to get rid of Duncan and his sons (tho in Scotland the king was elected not ness hereditary so M when thinks he is about to be named but Duncan names his son, M has no choice but to preempt) . Also confusions about how many go after Banquo, who is the other guy? So yes, possible scenes missed or lost or maybe Shakespeare just thought they would be boring! M not my fave Willy but I do think it would be more interesting if it were taught better. Sorry, guys and I include myself here as I did teach it once or twice. What is really fascinating is how it is a play meant to flatter James I who believed in witches even after this belief was waning in England and who thought he was descended from Banquo. He apparently we are told, saw this play so the scene in which the witches show the descendants of Banquo, through son Fleance, would actually end with the king himself sitting there.. just think about the drama of that, the break in the fourth wall , the intake of breath of the audience as they ‘get it’ and not tell me that our Willy is a brilliant stage man, genius. Hmm, I wonder if anyone has ever tried staging that? Macbeth as a play within a play about James I. Could be interesting. |
|
