382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Oct 12, 2022 15:18:15 GMT
Thanks for the TodayTix tip Jan!
|
|
1,191 posts
|
Post by Steve on Oct 12, 2022 16:05:33 GMT
The problem squarely lies in the structure: the three main characters talk endlessly about the actions of the past, and somewhere in those reminiscences are the materials for what could have been an arresting plot (grift! back-stabbing! mortification!). But that plot, alas, isn't what we're seeing, but rather, a sort of dismal epilogue: it's just recrimination 24/7 There are lots of good translations of this play which have been very successfully produced (the NT have sold out twice with it) so why not use one of those ? The answer here seems to be that they wanted an "updated" version. It is not necessary to update Ibsen - audiences are smart enough to draw parallels with the present day without being spoon fed - but if you're going to do it you need to rewrite the entire play word by word to fit a modern setting. This can be done well - I recall Simon Stone's "Wild Duck" - but usually it is a disaster. Here the dialogue is totally unbelievable in a modern setting, a strange combination of period English (I suppose copied from the literal translation) with soap opera style melodramatic additions, attempted jokes, and random Americanisms thrown in. Hopeless. The play is non-naturalistic and poetic
I agree with Oedipus that the fact that the play's mostly all aftermath makes it one of Ibsen's weaker plays, and I agree with Jan that if you are going to do it, you need a really poetic translation, and not this one, because if you are going to ruminate about the past, it needs to be poetic and atmospheric. I do love the three principal actors, though, so it was worth it for them, and I did enjoy the extreme bile of Borkman towards his wife and vice versa, which put me in mind me of the sitcom, "Kevin Can F--k Himself.".
Some spoilers follow. . .
What I like about Ibsen is the way he writes characters that simmer with almost religious intensity until they smash through the status quo. Here, like Oedipus said, Borkman has already done that before the play begins, and is now basically a ghost, as are the other two principals.
So if you are going to examine the aftermath of such an earthquake, and write about ghosts feeling aftershocks, then you deserve a Samuel Beckett level translation of ghostly ghastly brilliance, and this isn't it.
What this could be is the last ever episode of "Kevin Can F--k Himself:"
Basically, ye olde sitcoms often used to revolve around a lazy egotistical bloke, blaming a long-suffering her-indoors for everything about his life, and that was what was funny. "Kevin can F--k himself" is a show that repeats that basic setup, with Kevin getting laughs at his other half's expense, but then sympathetically and darkly cuts to her-indoors plotting to finish off Kevin lol.
This show is just like that, with SRB's Borkman endlessly rubbishing "the one downstairs" (this show's version of her-indoors, Clare Higgins's Gunhild), and downstairs, Clare Higgins deeply desperately hates his guts. I found SRB a marvellously funny "Kevin," in that his extreme contempt, trivialising "the one downstairs," is delightfully off-the-cuff and lived-in, and I found the dark brooding hatred of Clare Higgins's wife downstairs deliciously dark and deep. The introduction of Lia Williams' sister, Borkman's former lover who has cared for his son, triggers events that feel like a perfect last-ever-episode of this dark "sitcom."
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have been laughing, but my only excuse is that this translation omits the grave and necessary poetry to stop me doing it. And I really enjoyed the laughs.
3 stars from me, so happy to see the principals, and hoping to see them again in something better.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 12, 2022 16:57:16 GMT
There's a lot of familial history in this one. Henrik seems to have had a weight to get off his chest.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 12, 2022 17:37:33 GMT
What this could be is the last ever episode of "Kevin Can F--k Himself:"
The use of the piano piece Dance Macabre by Saint-Saens, which is specified in the text, brought to mind as I was watching it Strindberg's "Dance of Death" which is a play which actually is in that format.
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Oct 14, 2022 7:40:43 GMT
I saw this last night and really enjoyed it. I was a bit worried as I have previously found Ibsen hard going (see The Masterbuilder at the Old Vic a few years ago!) and a few people here have commented similarly about this one but it zipped along for me. Really impactful performances from the 3 leads and I really felt the complex history between them. The other performances were a long, longggg way off the leads but their short stage time meant it didn't cause too much of an issue for me. Overall very glad to have seen it and 4.5*.
The theatre was the emptiest I have seen the Bridge and a strange mix of people in their early/mid 20s or 70s with very little in between!
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 15, 2022 22:33:51 GMT
I wondered whether Simon Russell Beale was suited to the part and having seen it tonight, have to say the jury is well out on that. His physique is not helped by the odd (and pointless) decision to vaguely set it a few decades into the future from its original 1890s setting - which sees him clad in a shapeless vest and tracksuit bottom - putting him in a frock-coat or even an old-fashioned, expensive gown might have helped. But above all he is too buffo, too keen to wring a laugh out of anything which makes this production at times veer towards an Ayckbournesque vibe. We needed gravitas and got gags.
Already mentioned the "updating" - the visible evidence is the television set, a two-bar electric radiator and mention of "a car". None of these does anything for the play but, as with many plays which rely on sins and transgressions, making it more modern merely stretches credibility. Profumo would never have resigned in the modern political climate.
Lia Williams stood out for me as the characteristic Ibsen outsider in this play - even if she is JGB's sister-in-law. She was very convincing as the fey, disappointed dying former love interest - convinving to the point that I hope it was all characterisation, she didn't look well.
There is, as has been pointed out, a lot of talking about the past in this play but then this was practically Ibsen's last properly completed play and, in a loose sense, autobiographical in that he was looking back at his career as a playwright. Some of these speeches were addressed at great distances and the intimacy required wasn't always there.
Not bad, but far from what could have been achieved.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 23, 2022 18:03:33 GMT
Lots of empty seats which surprised me asSRB is usually a sure fire draw. I liked this, it was short enough just to avoid tedium, it was superbly acted. I disagree with joem above. I think SRB was very convincing as a failed man, 13 years into that failure. It is hard not to see Ibsen bashing us over the head with his messages about life and art but with his oeuvre I think he is justified here.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 23, 2022 18:51:53 GMT
Lots of empty seats which surprised me asSRB is usually a sure fire draw. I liked this, it was short enough just to avoid tedium, it was superbly acted. I disagree with joem above. I think SRB was very convincing as a failed man, 13 years into that failure. It is hard not to see Ibsen bashing us over the head with his messages about life and art but with his oeuvre I think he is justified here. I agree on SRB. He is a peerless comic character actor but in serious roles he’s mostly only good as characters who have been disappointed in some way - this fits that bill. I’ve seen him more than any other actor, 35 productions.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 23, 2022 21:16:18 GMT
I was pondering the stage configurations of The Bridge, am I right in thinking it's either the full thrust or the somewhat inaccurate immersive option?
In my mind I have thought it more flexible, perhaps like the Young Vic or NT Dorfman, but I'm not sure it is. I'm not even sure they can unthrust, to use a technical term - perhaps the Stalls sideways seats are either in or out.
Not entirely sure what point I'm trying to make. There was something in the back of my mind about occupying the stage acreage and that .. creating dissonance or separation (or something)? .. from events (stage area also goes way back, almost to SE17, almost). Or maybe I'm thinking of the shape forcing choices - The Southbury Child and the absurdly-sized table, or Back and Son, again, with unused acreage.
Am I just waffling nonsense on a Sunday evening? Is there a director in the house?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 24, 2022 13:27:49 GMT
I was pondering the stage configurations of The Bridge, am I right in thinking it's either the full thrust or the somewhat inaccurate immersive option? In my mind I have thought it more flexible, perhaps like the Young Vic or NT Dorfman, but I'm not sure it is. I'm not even sure they can unthrust, to use a technical term - perhaps the Stalls sideways seats are either in or out. Not entirely sure what point I'm trying to make. There was something in the back of my mind about occupying the stage acreage and that .. creating dissonance or separation (or something)? .. from events (stage area also goes way back, almost to SE17, almost). Or maybe I'm thinking of the shape forcing choices - The Southbury Child and the absurdly-sized table, or Back and Son, again, with unused acreage. Am I just waffling nonsense on a Sunday evening? Is there a director in the house? Yes I was wondering if they could convert it to a proscenium configuration too. I don’t know. The Young Vic is by far the most flexible space, or at least they’ve used it that way. I’ve seen all possible configurations there: in the round, thrust stage, promenade, proscenium, traverse, and several unique combinations of those.
|
|
354 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Oct 24, 2022 14:22:21 GMT
Wasn't the attrocious Very Very Very Dark Matter in a proscenium configuration? I had the sense of being far away from the stage which didn't actually hurt in that case given how poor the play was - so it may just be memory playing up. Certainly the couple next to me on Saturday seemed to feel they'd been cheated sitting in stalls C61-62 as it was a very side on view (actually fine for this production) and kept on about how they were front on the previous time. Everything the Bridge have had recently has been in the thrust staging though I think.
|
|
1,846 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Oct 24, 2022 14:33:40 GMT
The very first play Young Marx was as near as damn it a proscenium production if I remember rightly.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 24, 2022 15:26:04 GMT
The RST can be converted to a proscenium stage. The RSC new team should just get on and do it and admit the main house thrust stage configuration was a failed experiment.
|
|
4,958 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 24, 2022 15:42:15 GMT
If it's not too much trouble, Jan, could we please have a list of all 35 productions...either in this thread or a new one.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 24, 2022 15:49:11 GMT
If it's not too much trouble, Jan, could we please have a list of all 35 productions...either in this thread or a new one. I will put them in a new thread at some point - I actually missed quite a few of his famous roles that I could easily have seen: Richard III, Hamlet, Humble Boy, The Lehman Trilogy, Jumpers and no doubt several others.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 24, 2022 16:09:27 GMT
OK I put the list over in the Performers & Creatives section.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 24, 2022 21:24:51 GMT
I was pondering the stage configurations of The Bridge, am I right in thinking it's either the full thrust or the somewhat inaccurate immersive option? In my mind I have thought it more flexible, perhaps like the Young Vic or NT Dorfman, but I'm not sure it is. I'm not even sure they can unthrust, to use a technical term - perhaps the Stalls sideways seats are either in or out. Not entirely sure what point I'm trying to make. There was something in the back of my mind about occupying the stage acreage and that .. creating dissonance or separation (or something)? .. from events (stage area also goes way back, almost to SE17, almost). Or maybe I'm thinking of the shape forcing choices - The Southbury Child and the absurdly-sized table, or Back and Son, again, with unused acreage. Am I just waffling nonsense on a Sunday evening? Is there a director in the house? Yes I was wondering if they could convert it to a proscenium configuration too. I don’t know. The Young Vic is by far the most flexible space, or at least they’ve used it that way. I’ve seen all possible configurations there: in the round, thrust stage, promenade, proscenium, traverse, and several unique combinations of those. The Bridge is very flexible. Did you seen the walkabout productions? Or the Maggie Smith piece?
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Oct 24, 2022 22:18:52 GMT
Not "walkabout" it's 'immersive', don't cha know. I covered that. German Maggie Smith was on the slowest emerging thrust ever.
I'm not convinced it is flexible, anymore.
|
|
|
Post by NorthernAlien on Oct 29, 2022 22:50:26 GMT
I saw this at the matinee today (Saturday). I knew absolutely nothing about it before I went in, other than that it was by Ibsen, and had SRB in it.
First thing - Gallery 2 was showing on the website as 'sold out', and was described by the FoH staff as 'closed'. Given that when I was looking at tickets yesterday, some seats up there had sold, I suspect there were some members of this afternoon's audience who had played "Matinee ticket roulette" and won!
I agree with other comments that the plot, or lack thereof, let this down. It felt like there were big chunks of something missing, and by the end I wasn't sure that anything had actually happened during the 1hr and 45 minutes.
I thought SRB was great, as was Lia Williams. I also thought the pianist was excellent.
I can see what they were trying to do with the set design, and maybe also with the costumes.
But mostly, this felt like it kept on approaching making a point, about corruption, or greed, or the inability of a certain sort of man to take responsibility for anything, or the strain on a relationship when one partner goes to jail (and is then released), or any one of a number of other things that it seemed to be dancing around the edges of. But it never seemed to actually get to any insightful or interesting commentary on any of those things.
A missed opportunity, I think.
But I only paid £15, so it could have been worse
|
|
88 posts
|
Post by tommy on Nov 6, 2022 18:20:14 GMT
Thought the acting of the 3 leads and the directing was brilliant!m. Glad to have seen it and what a unique venue this theatre is!
|
|
155 posts
|
Post by bee on Nov 20, 2022 13:22:15 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon and thought it was excellent. Great acting from the three leads, and also from Michael Simkins as Vilhelm. For some reason I found the moment towards the end, when he found out his daughter had run off without saying goodbye, and he accepts it meekly, to be tremendously sad. The younger actors had less of an impact, but their scenes didn't really give them much opportunity. I'd agree with the general feeling here about about the modern update. I couldn't see why anyone would think it was necessary.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by jm25 on Nov 20, 2022 20:54:20 GMT
I saw this at the matinee today (Saturday). I knew absolutely nothing about it before I went in, other than that it was by Ibsen, and had SRB in it. First thing - Gallery 2 was showing on the website as 'sold out', and was described by the FoH staff as 'closed'. Given that when I was looking at tickets yesterday, some seats up there had sold, I suspect there were some members of this afternoon's audience who had played "Matinee ticket roulette" and won! I agree with other comments that the plot, or lack thereof, let this down. It felt like there were big chunks of something missing, and by the end I wasn't sure that anything had actually happened during the 1hr and 45 minutes. I thought SRB was great, as was Lia Williams. I also thought the pianist was excellent. I can see what they were trying to do with the set design, and maybe also with the costumes. But mostly, this felt like it kept on approaching making a point, about corruption, or greed, or the inability of a certain sort of man to take responsibility for anything, or the strain on a relationship when one partner goes to jail (and is then released), or any one of a number of other things that it seemed to be dancing around the edges of. But it never seemed to actually get to any insightful or interesting commentary on any of those things. A missed opportunity, I think. But I only paid £15, so it could have been worse I think this pretty much exactly sums up my view. Saw it on Friday and didn't really think anything really happened throughout the entire thing, save for a lot of shouting and pacing! I'd only booked to see Simon Russell Beale and wasn't at all disappointed in that respect. He really made the most of what I thought was pretty terrible dialogue. I think a sure sign of a good translation is when you can't tell that it is a translation. With this, I wasn't at all familiar with the original or with any other translations of it, but there was just something about it which wasn't flowing right. I had a similar feeling when I watched The Dance of Death at the Arcola earlier this year. I had an £18 seat for practically a front row seat. Really felt like I was on the stage so I enjoyed my evening for that alone! The gallery was closed and lots of other free seats dotted around, though the stalls were reasonably full.
|
|