|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 3, 2022 16:00:04 GMT
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 3, 2022 17:13:33 GMT
Looking forward to this, booked immediately as a must see for me.
|
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Apr 3, 2022 19:36:05 GMT
Having never been to the Arcola before, does anyone have any seat recommendations please? Are the £19 seats in the stalls / balcony worth buying? Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 3, 2022 19:48:15 GMT
Having never been to the Arcola before, does anyone have any seat recommendations please? Are the £19 seats in the stalls / balcony worth buying? Thanks in advance. It is a very odd auditorium, I’d say anywhere in the central block (middle of the three) is fine, stalls or balcony. The seats at the side can be problematic simply because the actors don’t play to them sometimes and you’re looking along a quite narrow stage. |
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Apr 3, 2022 19:51:15 GMT
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 3, 2022 20:09:12 GMT
Agree, I always go for the front facing seats, the side facing if tempted go for the lower towards the back wall.
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 2, 2022 22:19:14 GMT
I am glad I ignored the reviews I'd read about this. I found it hard to believe that an actress as distinguished as Lindsay Duncan would be associated with a poor production and my instinct was vindicated.
Yes, Strindberg was often a shouty self-propagandist in his lifetime - and these rarely date well - but his best work deserves exploring and reviving more regularly and is closer than he himself would have liked to the Scandinavian nonpareil - Ibsen.
The "battle of the sexes" genre (if it is one) has changed much in the last century, as most of the more obvious discriminations have been ended or lessened, and the theme is perhaps what dates this play the most. This, and the lack of clearer explanation for the hatred between the warring man and wife, weakens the play. But it is far from a total loss and the real-life husband and wife pairing of Lindsay Duncan and (I hope they were unable to draw on their own experiences for this) give a convincing performance in the lead roles. Well stage and produced, this is far from the car-crash of a production I was expecting.
On a side note this was my first ever visit to the Arcola - one of only two or three fringe venues I'd never visited - and it is a friendly place with a good stage even if the seating is a bit odd.
One black mark - doesn't take cash. Heaven forfend they should launder £5.50 of dirty cash by selling you a glass of rose wine.
|
|
315 posts
|
Post by jm25 on Jul 4, 2022 22:28:21 GMT
Booked to see this tonight on a bit of a whim. Venue felt a bit school drama centre-esque! It didn't work for me at all. From the outset the writing felt totally off. I actually found myself quite distracted thinking about why it felt so jarring and concluded that it was because the language seemed totally at odds with the setting, the characters, their attitudes, etc. It was only afterwards that I realised the play had been written 100+ years ago and had been adapted and 'modernised' for this production - my fault for not doing my research I suppose! I bought a copy of the play whilst there and have just been comparing it to the original text, and I can't for the life of me understand why they felt the need to update it. I suppose all the swearing was to add comedy? Slight production spoiler (well, if you haven't seen the posters): {Spoiler - click to view}
When reading up about the original on my way home, I wasn't entirely surprised to learn that the character of Katrin was originally Kurt. I'm normally quite a big fan of gender-reversed roles but throughout the whole play I couldn't buy into the dynamic between Alice/Katrin, even if I couldn't quite put my finger on why. It made a bit more sense when I learned that Katrin was originally a male role. Hard to say if the problem was with the writing or the lack of chemistry between the actors, but I just cannot see what the reasoning behind the change was. Certainly the hints towards the end at a sexual element to their dynamic felt unearned and even, dare I say it, random. Just a change for the sake of change? I'm also not entirely clear how old Katrin was supposed to be but Emily Bruni, whilst undoubtedly trying her best, looked a little too young. I am glad I ignored the reviews I'd read about this. I found it hard to believe that an actress as distinguished as Lindsay Duncan would be associated with a poor production and my instinct was vindicated. Yes, Strindberg was often a shouty self-propagandist in his lifetime - and these rarely date well - but his best work deserves exploring and reviving more regularly and is closer than he himself would have liked to the Scandinavian nonpareil - Ibsen. The "battle of the sexes" genre (if it is one) has changed much in the last century, as most of the more obvious discriminations have been ended or lessened, and the theme is perhaps what dates this play the most. This, and the lack of clearer explanation for the hatred between the warring man and wife, weakens the play. But it is far from a total loss and the real-life husband and wife pairing of Lindsay Duncan and (I hope they were unable to draw on their own experiences for this) give a convincing performance in the lead roles. Well stage and produced, this is far from the car-crash of a production I was expecting. On a side note this was my first ever visit to the Arcola - one of only two or three fringe venues I'd never visited - and it is a friendly place with a good stage even if the seating is a bit odd. One black mark - doesn't take cash. Heaven forfend they should launder £5.50 of dirty cash by selling you a glass of rose wine. Had no idea that Lindsay Duncan and Hilton McRae were married in real life! Or that this had been slated! Not surprised to hear of the negative reactions but I am surprised to learn that they're married - if only because it makes the implausibility of their characters' relationship all the more baffling! There didn't seem to be any depth or nuance to it. No hints at any kind of underlying warmth which surely would have been necessary to sustain their marriage for 30 years. They just seemed to flat out hate each other and it was pretty miserable to watch. The actors were obviously going for laughs with certain lines but nothing quite seemed to land as they'd hoped, though to be fair the ham-fisted dialogue may have been partially to blame... Unimpressed though I was, I always think there's something to be gained from watching things you don't enjoy, even if only to work out what it is that doesn't quite work for you. This for me was a good lesson on why 'modernising' does not always = improving. But all things considered, £12 for the chance to see Lindsay Duncan and support a small venue is still money well spent (just!).  |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 6, 2022 6:06:18 GMT
I enjoyed this. The Guardian 1* review is puzzling, I'd say 3*. The main problem was the text which had been adapted by Rebecca Lenkiewicz, the latest in a long line of modern playwrights who think they know better than the original authors. Just to highlight the most obvious issue here - it's a play entirely about sexual politics with three main characters - didn't the adapter consider that by reversing the gender of one of the characters the play would be totally compromised ? What was the purpose of it other than meeting some simple gender count target ? The original author, Strindberg, definitely wouldn't have approved. But apparently that's OK because he's out of copyright.
I've seen the play a few times. All you need to do is get a faithful translation, set it in period, cast it as specified by Strindberg with some good actors and it works fine and still makes points which are relevant for a modern audience.
There's a Part II to the play actually which is also interesting and the two parts sometimes get combined, from what I recall the Michael Pennington/Linda Marlowe version directed by Tom Littler did this.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jul 6, 2022 6:54:29 GMT
A dark almost comedic play as the protagonists take pleasure in the pain they reign on those around them and more importantly themselves.
The gender reverse detracted from the play as Katrin’s sexual motive was diminished and for me absent until the moment it was made evident and the power play between the captain and Katrin was more uncomfortable when directed at a woman and the overseas travel made no sense for the time it was written and the period staging.
Not sure I enjoyed it but once I gave up trying to like any of the characters I could settle into watching the lives of the detestable couple as they exhibited the worst of mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 6, 2022 7:30:18 GMT
One odd small point in the adaptation: Why change it to the pearl wedding anniversary (30 years) when the original text says silver (25 years) when you've cast an actress to play Katrin (Kurt) who looks too young to have first introduced them to each other ?
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Jul 6, 2022 8:47:30 GMT
@jan thought the same as Katrin was way too young to have introduced them, will look to see this again some time as the playwright intended, for me the gender change diminished the core subtext of the play as the sexual attraction between Katrin and Alice was missing right up until it was forced upon us.
|
|
1,250 posts
|
Post by joem on Jul 6, 2022 9:03:08 GMT
One odd small point in the adaptation: Why change it to the pearl wedding anniversary (30 years) when the original text says silver (25 years) when you've cast an actress to play Katrin (Kurt) who looks too young to have first introduced them to each other ? Perhaps it was to take into account the ages of the two leads? Seems to me they were probably 20 years older than the characters. Unless Katrin(Kurt) introduced them when she was in kindergarten? |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 6, 2022 9:17:21 GMT
One odd small point in the adaptation: Why change it to the pearl wedding anniversary (30 years) when the original text says silver (25 years) when you've cast an actress to play Katrin (Kurt) who looks too young to have first introduced them to each other ? Perhaps it was to take into account of the ages of the two leads? Yes I am sure you are right. At one point Alice said she was ten years younger than Edgar - I'm not sure if that's in the original text or another adjustment to accommodate older leads and somehow fit with the wedding anniversary and the fact they had 4 children. Actually the problem was compounded for me because Emily Bruni looks younger than she actually is (47). In Part II we get to see Kurt's son and Judith (Alice & Edgar's daughter) - just as well they didn't include it. |
|
