35 replies to this topic

[Theatresquirrel]

I'm somewhat reluctant to start a new thread on here about a Katie Mitchell play, knowing there are vultures circling to land...

...I'll say this in their defence - if you were to walk into this show with no warning of what its game is, you may well feel totally alienated.

But, assuming you've read a preview or the programme or any other blurb or indeed seen Katie Mitchell's previous Cottesloe production of 'Waves' then hopefully you'll be attuned to something very inquisitive and innovative.

I'll keep this brief: for me (let me repeat: for me), this show does nothing less than reveal to its audience the total artifice that both theatre and cinema are, and YET its masterstroke is that it simultaneously shows how - even when we know it's all artificial - we still find ourselves inescapably, genuinely moved by both forms. How can we possibly believe or feel stricken by Ben Whishaw's convulsive fit when the very second he needs to stop doing it, we see him spring to his feet and revert to something else entirely prosaic? Surely that should rob the moment of its magic, its power. And yet here, it doesn't. In this show we see the mechanics and the magic superimposed, and somehow both enthrall.

I marginally prefered 'Waves' for its stirring sense of nostalgia, but the cinematic coups of this new show go way further (and for the first time make me eager to see Mitchell leave the theatre and make a movie). What she achieves on screen in this new show is easily EASILY the best British film I've seen in years. But that's only half of the production. What's more, it has what 'Waves' didn't: a phenomenal star performance by Whishaw. Although all the company are great, he is astonishing, taking you into his character in a heartbeat time and again, and he's absolutely made for the many tremendous big screen close-ups this show trades in. I anticipate that he's going to be Gielgud-famous and one day people who've not been born yet will see stills of this show - stills of his face on the show's giant screen - and marvel at what it might have been like to see live.

It's utterly experimental, freeform, hectic and as ugly in parts as it is beautiful, but I urge any ardent theatre fans to it. By some league, it's the most impressive, confounding, stylish, original and exciting thing I've seen in a theatre so far this year.

[josh]

I'll keep this brief: for me (let me repeat: for me), this show does nothing less than reveal to its audience the total artifice that both theatre and cinema are, and YET its masterstroke is that it simultaneously shows how - even when we know it's all artificial - we still find ourselves inescapably, genuinely moved by both forms. How can we possibly believe or feel stricken by Ben Whishaw's convulsive fit when the very second he needs to stop doing it, we see him spring to his feet and revert to something else entirely prosaic? Surely that should rob the moment of its magic, its power. And yet here, it doesn't. In this show we see the mechanics and the magic superimposed, and somehow both enthrall....


It's utterly experimental, freeform, hectic and as ugly in parts as it is beautiful, but I urge any ardent theatre fans to it. By some league, it's the most impressive, confounding, stylish, original and exciting thing I've seen in a theatre so far this year.

You have made me very excited to see it, since I agree with you on most things Mitchell. Especially what you say about Whishaw. As much as I loved Waves, there was something lacking with the performers generally unable to shine as individuals.

Thanks for the review.

[Lynette]

I'll memorise your handy adjectives Th Squ for when my companion starts up....
x

[MrsDoyle]

I haven't read all the first post as I'm going on Saturday. I only know a little about it from the National's blurb and am going as I think Ben Whishaw is one to watch (I didn't see his Hamlet but I enjoyed the much derided Seagull and thought he was fabulous in the movie Perfume).
I'll get back to you Saturday night.

[Reich]

I won’t be going

Jenufa & Iphigenia in Aulis are some of the best pieces of theatre I have ever seen and Jeptha wasn’t that that far behind. Since then nothing has grabbed me and it just leaves me bored and frustrated  as I feel I've seen it (or most of it) before … I also feel the same about Richard Jones.

[Jan Brock]

I'm somewhat reluctant to start a new thread on here about a Katie Mitchell play, knowing there are vultures circling to land...

Shouldn't you have posted this in the "Reviews" section ?

[JonnyBoy]

I saw this on press night with my family and the 4 of us had similar views.  It was interesting to watch Ben Whishaw and Hattie Morahan close up and the technical skill on display was remarkable.  It was a completely new experience to me, combining theatre with film-making and is worth a trip to see just for this.  The way the actors turned from being in the shot to controlling the next shot is very clever and some sequences made people gasp/laugh in recognition at their clever compostion.
But, and it's a big but, none of us had the faintest idea at what was going on and, after reading critics reviews, it seems we aren't the only ones.  Yes, we gathered bits of info and were presented with striking images but there was a complete lack of drama and forward motion as it was near-impossible to follow a plot.  This was certainly not helped by seemingly random pieces of poetry being read into microphones, overlapping some scenes.
If you see this production, I would strongly advise to do a bit of research into Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot', on which this play is based and get a general idea of the plot.  It may make the evening a richer one.  As we went into the play 'blind' we came away feeling intrigued by what we had seen, but somewhat bewildered.  Summary:  An experience!!

[Jenny_tyr]

After seeing Women of Troy I had decided to not bother with seeing anything else by Katie Mitchell, but this one sounded quite interesting, and there were no reports of her using her usual tired bag of tricks, so I ventured to the matinee of this one yesterday.

Well, it's an interesting idea and a technically accomplished work, I'll give you that, though it's more of an installation or a piece or performance art. I see that it's not described as a play, which it certainly isn't, but just as a "work".

After less than 15 minutes I was totally bored, and if there had been an interval I would have left. To alleviate the boredom I started doing more worthwhile things, like listing in my mind which tube lines serve which stations, and which streets to walk to get from various points A to points B.

There's just no emotional connection, probably due to the constant telling of the story (what remains of it anyway) in the form of voiceovers, which not only creates a distance, but has such a pretentious artificiality to it that it's almost repellent. Strange, with such a cast, that there's only one single scene which packs any kind of dramatic impact, the one where Sam Crane as the young man dying of consumption talks about his coming death.

One to avoid unless you're an ardent Mitchell fan.