Author: MrBert (page 2 of 29)
It is a curious thought, but it is only when you see people looking ridiculous that you realise just how much you love them.
On my way up to Harrogate by train, so a rare mid-week posting.
The reviews came out yesterday. A steady 2 star set of ratings. It’s disappointing.
I’m in the privileged position of having seen the end stage of the creative process of this production just before it went into previews. I saw the director, the actors, the designers and stage management all working. I talked to them – and still do. What no one knows is what a great team have made this production. Within the hierarchy, I’m pretty low, but from day one I was treated and spoken to as an equal.
(Right at this moment I am caught between taking the lid off my tea to let it cool down as it’s too hot to drink, and leaving the lid on so I don’t throw tea around the carriage. Too late…)
It means I look forward to going into work. I’m in a team of people who smile, chat, respect each other, work as a team – and above all work very hard.
That’s a thing people do know, but don’t always think about. And this is something people should think about when they are writing reviews. This play is a two-hander lasting 95 minutes with no interval. The two actors are barely off stage the whole time. They are locked into a 90 minute conversation with each other. Think how much that means they have to learn and remember.
It’s more than a memory feat. It’s an intense play. One character is relentlessly cynical and negative. They are locked into a dance and the level of trust the two actors have in each other is (has to be) extraordinary. If one forgets a line, the other has to react. If a prop malfunctions, they have to deal with it. They are both exposed. It is acting at a dangerous and exciting level – but it must be utterly exhausting. Two days of each week they perform two shows.
I don’t mind people not liking the play itself. (Having said that I know what a bad show is and this is not a badly written play by ANY stretch of the imagination). But please give the cast some credit, some acknowledgement for their work and achievement. They are superb actors giving superb performances. Two stars? One for the play and one for the production? Well if you insist, but at least acknowledge the work before you, in your review or opinion. I am not anti-critics. I think well informed, reflective, historically and politically aware critics are important. I just don’t like something being pulled down because someone doesn’t like it very much,
The West End is a business. People make money from it. People lose money in it. And most people working in it really care about what they are doing; they do what they do to high standards. Please remember that, especially when you aren’t enjoying something very much.
This exhibition is at the National Gallery in London. I had a four hour gap between rehearsals yesterday and so I went to see it. I really enjoy going to gallery exhibitions but I feel saturated by so-called once in a lifetime blockbusters, trekking round with people getting in my way and generally just ending up getting angry – possibly not the right response for viewing great art.
But this exhibition knocked me for six. It’s extraordinary. I couldn’t pull myself away from the paintings which is very unusual for me. It’s focus is the relationship between these two artists who were related by marriage, and which is pretty much unique. They didn’t paint together, they had different styles, they had very different backgrounds and ways to success, but they painted responses to each other’s work. So this exhibition, superbly curated, hangs together paintings which have all sorts of links. That in itself is a reason to go, but the paintings themselves by both artists are breathtaking. I rarely respond to paintings on an emotional level, but these paintings are not only some of the most stunning technical feats, but carry a life in their composition, subject matter and faces which left me spellbound. For me this is one of the best exhibitions I have ever seen. On a Friday afternoon it was busy but not annoyingly so (I get annoyed in art galleries – I really need my own private views.) If for no other reason, if you can, just go to look at the faces of the people in the paintings. No exaggeration to call this a once in a lifetime exhibition.
Resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
Carrie Fisher (and with lots of variations from other people.)
The lady sitting next to me asked me if it was over at the interval. It was a fair enough question. Her English was good but she was Russian (and not Italian as I had asked her – that went down well….). Josie Rourke’s blast of a production of Measure For Measure at the Donmar certainly seemed to have everyone in a place of disquiet by the end of the first half. We’d seen the whole play in a condensed version. I have to say I was quite pleased about this as I have only ever seen it twice before: once with Josette Simon, and once with Romola Garai. Both are actors I really admire but the play just never left and impression on me. At the end of the first half of this production I had physically jolted in my seat and my mouth was open.
I had heard the director talking about her production some time ago and had remembered her talking about Isabella’s problematic silence and a cry, but nothing prepared me for the roar that came out of Hayley Atwell into the face of Nicholas Burns’ Duke.
The play had been in traditional-looking costume up until this point. I found Hayley Atwell one of those actors whom it was hard not to look at or listen to. She had such presence. I think because this was a condensed version of the play, cut to the bone the power and darkness of its plot and emotions really came across. It is like an anti-romantic comedy. By the end, a man is punished with a marriage (I gather characters have been cut altogether) and Isabella, who wants no marriage with any one, is forced into a loveless one. And her silence at the end felt painful. It seemed to be “justified” by her powerful reunion with Claudio (Sule Rimi) her brother. Rimi was another actor I found it hard not to watch, so together with Atwell the reunion was intense. But then came the roar as Isabella ran at the Duke. It was one of the most shocking moments I have experienced in theatre and I am left wondering if the women watching in the audience were more relieved than surprised at this woman’s cry against the agony of her situation.
Then something else happens. The cast change into modern costume and off we go again. Only this time Atwell plays Angelo (Isabella’s tormentor) and Jack Lowden who has played Angelo now takes on Isabella’s role. Instead of sexual repression within the context of law and religion, Lowden plays an ex-addict in a clinic. This time “Isabella” is faced with the death of Claudio or being forced back into the life of a self-destructing addict. There’s a lot of humour with the use of mobile phones but generally the modern setting is played with fairly lightly so as not to overwhelm the exploration of ideas here amongst the characters. Second time around the woman wields power but she is the tyrant. The male tyrant is now the captive.
I watched Atwell thinking is she playing a male part as a woman character or as the female actor she is. But these were pointless questions. Atwell was a woman, playing the role as if written for a woman. Actor and role were hand in glove. What was interesting was my response to the woman as “baddie” was to laugh more (along with many in the audience). There is a pleasure in it (see Killing Eve). And Lowden (who for me lacked Angelo’s insidious sexual charisma a bit in the first half) became a weak man and so for me unsympathetic. Yet at the end the horror of what Angelo has done (although his punishment as marriage to male Mariana (Ben Allen) was less effective, and the silenced Lowden forced into a kiss by the Duke was as unsettling as the end of the first half.
At the end I asked the Russian woman if she had enjoyed it. She said she had (and she had laughed quite a lot). she said she had only read he play and she had missed some of the language play in the second half because of the gender swapping (I forgot to say there as some very funny moments in the second half for this reason). But she said she didn’t like feminist things and wasn’t sure about the homosexual relationship. I said to her that this wasn’t really a feminist production; it put a woman in a conventionally male position but what it was also showing was that the abuse of power is one of the blackest of human behaviours. The final “gay” relationship was totally non-consensual. She looked thoughtful and then agreed with me.
Having said that though I have to say that, Isabella/Atwell’s scream is still a sound more likely to be buried inside a woman than a man, and for that reason it is just as important men see this production as women.
I’ve mentioned the main actors who were outstanding but I also have to not Jackie Clune’s hilarious Pompey (with Russian accent in the second half which fortunately amused my seated Russian neighbour), Rachel Denning comically and believably confident as Mistress Overdone, and Helena Wilson whose small parts as Mariana/Justice show her as an actor to watch (especially after her part in the Donmar’s previous The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie).
I’m still thinking about this play and production as a friend said, those evenings are the best.
(Apologies for errors in the above – I’m short of time and had to whack it out rather than not write it at all)
In a rich man’s house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes of Sinope
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Working in the theatre means watching the same thing over and over again. Which of course can be a nightmare, but at the best of times it means I can watch a performance and/or a production develop, deepen, reveal layers initially unseen and unexpected. All that comes from the text and what the designers, actors and director add to it. I went to hear the playwright Chris Bush speak recently and she said something along the lines of: what is good is when the production is what you had in mind for your play, but what is great is when the production goes beyond your original ideas. As performances repeat, no two ones ever being the same, that process can continue to uncover what the playwright had in mind and then go beyond.
‘Beginning’ by David Eldridge (as all regular readers know) was a case in point for me. I never failed to be moved by it, and it was a joy watching its growth on the West End stage – oh, and growth can go in all sorts of directions. A play is an art form unlike most in that it gets handed over to adoptive parents. If you are a living playwright (for better or worse) you can continue to be part of its continuing life, but you still have to surrender it.
And so to Joanna Murray-Smith’s play Honour. To be honest I had no interest it in. I had gone into a bookshop to get a copy of her play Switzerland, as I shall be working on it next month. Indeed after that I shall be working on her one-woman show Songs For Nobodies, so I feel like a stalker. Well, Switzerland was not there but I noticed a copy of Honour, which rang an bell, and a quick internet search reminded me it had an imminent production at the Park Theatre. So I bought the text and booked tickets. (I’m not generally impulsive but I’m out of work and have the time.)
I tweeted my reaction to reading the text as “it’s left me breathless and thoughtful and slightly off-kilter.” And my reaction to the production at the Park theatre I saw last night? I’d say the above again – plus about three emotional punches in the stomach that filled my eyes with tears.
This play, this production is for me what theatre is about; why theatre matters. In a series of short scenes I watched the complexities of four human beings manifest themselves without taking one side of any character, without simplistic arguments, without smoke and mirrors wit or aphorisms. This play, these actors put me in their shoes, made me feel what they were going though. I read the play quickly as it felt like an intricate dance-fight. The production was slower. It gave the language time without taking away its musicality. The set and lighting designs by Liz Cooke and Sally Ferguson respectively were simple but used to cohesive effect showing less is more at its best. The text has no stage directions for the settings of its scenes, so here the director Paul Robinson chose his own ideas (taken out of suggestions in the dialogue) and conveyed it basically with the movement and placing of wooden blocks, the actors own movement and gestures, and a handful of props. I’m sure it wasn’t a simple process getting to this end for the creatives involved, but boy, did it work.
It’s a play on a well known theme – the breaking up of a marriage – but where it surprises me is in two ways. Firstly the man is the least interesting character whilst the women are vibrant and whole and secondly, one character is the couple’s daughter. This play is called Honour and it is more about the concept of honour than its eponymous character of the wife. Honour is not a word I hear used much nowadays – certainly not in the context of marriage and personal relationships. Here I watched the consequences of the disregard of honour, because of narcissism and greed stemming from dissatisfaction. There’s so much I can write here but once the plot has gone into its main gear, its subsequent twists and turns are through character, and so to write about the characters is to give away the pleasures and pains contained in this play. As I say, nothing is simple as each character reveals more than I expected.
Imogen Stubbs as Honour reigns in any risk of melodrama, a trap a lesser actor could fall into, by opening her heart in the most truthful of ways, so by her last spoken line of the first half, I was left so moved by the understanding revealed to me of her character in this situation that I was unable to speak for a few moments. All the time she conveyed surface and depth simultaneously, for example in moments when she shows she is feeling physically hot – it’s not in the script but it’s so truthful and revealing at those moments in the play and her characterisation.
Natalie Simpson as Sophie, the couple’s daughter, absolutely caught the confusion of an adult as young child (and isn’t that what we all are?) in the one scene of both text and performance that caught me off-guard as I realised the extent of consequences of the marriage’s disintegration. Simpson did absolute justice to the writing in a scene between her and Claudia, the young woman, when so much is conveyed and so much is said in so few words.
Perhaps the most difficult character is Claudia, played by Katie Brayben, who I have to say in the initial scenes brought in more subtlety than I expected from the text. when I was reading it I felt a later gear change for here that didn’t quite work, but which Brayben handled beautifully, and so truthfully. I come back to that word again and again.
Finally Henry Goodman as George the plot’s catalyst. Again there is a trickiness here as I believe George has to be likeable whatever his actions, and Goodman catches that perfectly in his performance. It has to be that way because otherwise there are moments later in the play he has with Honour that would not have some of the audiences audible in-taking breath and gasping, as they did last night. That’s what watching truthfulness in the theatre does.
Of the three plays by Murray-Smith that London is hosting, this is the one I won’t be watching night after night, the production I won’t be able to see develop, deepen, reveal layers initially unseen and unexpected, the production that I won’t be able to wonder at each unique performance, is this going beyond what its author had in mind? Of course I cannot speak for her – but I do believe it is.