Jump to content


Three Sisters


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#11 armadillo

armadillo

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 2740 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:06 AM

Do many 12 year olds buy tickets for the Young Vic? :blink: Is that the audience that producers are now meant to attract?

#12 mallardo

mallardo

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 29 September 2012 - 06:10 PM

This was excruciating.  During the entire 3rd act two guys dismantled and carted off pieces of the stage while the action played on an island in the middle.  I have no idea how the act went because I was busy trying to guess which piece was going next.

Every wrong-headed cliche and directorial excess you can think of was employed in this one.  No subtlety, no nuance, Chekhov's exquisitely complex characters reduced to stupid stereotypes.  No pace, no tension, no drama.  Two of the cast were worthy of a better production - William Houston who managed not to make Vershinin the bore he can so easily become, and Sam Troughton who was a near perfect Tuzenbach.  As to the others, it's hard to blame them when they have been so ineptly directed.
Excuse me if I seem jejune
I promise I'll find my marbles soon.

#13 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1238 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:06 AM

View Postmallardo, on 29 September 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Two of the cast were worthy of a better production - William Houston who managed not to make Vershinin the bore he can so easily become, and Sam Troughton who was a near perfect Tuzenbach.

I thought Michael Feast was excellent, as he always is these days, but playing the Doctor in the style of the "modifed" production rather than what Chekov wrote. The cast considerably better than the director I'd say.

After their sensational Hamlet reboot this one was less convincing, we do not see the play often enough in its "traditional" format to make a radical reinterpretation effective, but anyway it is an interesting niche for the Young Vic to occupy.

#14 Cardinal Pirelli

Cardinal Pirelli

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:51 PM

Just seen the matinee, this is the most intelligent and directorially perceptive production that I've seen of the play in ages. It's quite traditional in fact, nothing is imposed, everything arises from the text (nicely updated by Andrews). The closest approximation I can get is that this is Chekhov as the precursor to Beckett (a strong link that is often missed). It is, therefore, as bleak an ending as you can imagine, the loss is not just theirs it also spans the intervening century and beyond; there is no future.

The cast are mostly excellent, although I thought Kirby, Kirrane and Gale stood out.

Having seen Gross und Klein and thinking that the directing outstripped the play it's good to see the same director approaching a timeless classic, I hope that his shows visit these shows more regularly.

#15 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1238 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:31 AM

View PostCardinal Pirelli, on 06 October 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

The closest approximation I can get is that this is Chekhov as the precursor to Beckett (a strong link that is often missed).

You think ? Thematically maybe, but stylistically I always consider Chekov as a precursor to Pinter (for example in the way people talk re-iterating their same point over and over again with no-one at all really listening to what they are saying).

#16 xanderl

xanderl

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2077 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:39 AM

I thought this was fantastic - never seen a traditional version of the play though.

Only problem I had with the staging was during the dinner party scene, from the front row of the centre stalls the view of most of the stage was blocked by the large carnival head that had been left on stage. I considered standing up and moving it but thought that might be classed as "bad behaviour"
"witty ... both made me laugh but also gave me pause" - Mark Shenton, The Stage

#17 Cardinal Pirelli

Cardinal Pirelli

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:56 AM

View PostEpicoene, on 07 October 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

You think ? Thematically maybe, but stylistically I always consider Chekov as a precursor to Pinter (for example in the way people talk re-iterating their same point over and over again with no-one at all really listening to what they are saying).

I think of Pinter's characters as impelled by an anger that contrasts with the the humanity of those of Beckett (and of Chekhov). I can never connect with Pinter's characters the way that I can with the latter duo.

In any case, I thought that the production brought out the Beckettian aspect, a mound of earth, a vein of painful humour (also brought out by Peter Brook in Fragments, again at the Young Vic) and the inevitable tick tock of time, being born 'astride the grave'.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users