Reader Reviews
Troilus and Cressida (Swan Theatre, Stratford-Upon-Avon)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | truly the worst production I have ever seen in 35 years of going to Stratford. - Anne Carvell | 21 Sep 12 |
| Let's be positive. It was dire, but it did send you back to the play itself, so thanks for that. Just a shame about having to endure the excruciating evening first. Some good things - the Greek thugs and the whole anti-heroic thing, general confusion, manipulative Ulysses. Some interesting things - the tv bit (although badly realised), Thersites just as Chapman described him. RSC bits were better - at least they could make sense of the lines - mostly. The Americans were out of their depth and the meaning of the lines seemed a mystery to them; their ability to get the message across very limited. By common consent in the gallery, Cressida was least good. Both she and Pandarus lost so many opportunities in two fabulous roles. Production left lots of questions - why was Patroclus so devoted to his gold shoes, why Achilles' red dress, why an Aussie Diomedes with a cricket bat? These things don't matter but in such a production they mount up. One word about the Trojans - I loved their little dances and their costumes; but that's part of the problem - they made audience responses so patronising. I wonder if the RSC were happy with the quality of the production or if not, whether they exercised any quality control. It’s great to have experimental stuff at the Edinburgh Fringe at £10-£15 a go, not at the RSC at four or five times that. Unless you're a serious collector of oddball productions, stay away. - Hugh | 28 Aug 12 |
| I, too, had the misfortune to attend a performance of T&C. Just dreadful, we left at the intermission. As Canadians, we wanted to see a live performance of a Shakespearean play in Shakespeare's country. Wish we hadn't wasted the money and time. - Maria Saunders | 27 Aug 12 |
| Dreadful - nearly walked out at the interval and spent the remainder of the evening wishing I had. - vivienne | 19 Aug 12 |
| We pay for this tosh... - Stuart | 17 Aug 12 |
| Only Scott Handy was worth keeping as a coherent Ulysses. The American Trojans could not speak the verse. I felt sorry for the RSC actors. The WOS review is spot on. We left at the interval along with two other parties on our flanks. We made instant friends slagging it off. - Jeremy Baker | 17 Aug 12 |
| Excellent. Certainly takes a bit of work on the part of the audience to decipher but I don't go to the theatre to be spoon fed. The Indians are not meant to be authentic Indians (although those accents are much more 'Indian' accents than 'Irish-american' accents which don't exist as such) just as Shakespeare's Trojan War is not Homer's. It isn't always easy but it's not exactly rocket science. - Steve Johnson | 15 Aug 12 |
| Load of diatribe from Woosters. Worst adaption of a Shakespeare play I have ever seen. The only saving grace was the RSC members and Scott Hanby as Ulysses. - Paul Talbot | 15 Aug 12 |
| Simply awful .I felt sorry for "our lot" though Scott Handy and Zubin Varla rose above the general mire.After 50 years am thinking of giving up the RSC;a dire "12th Night".a laughable"Measure for Measure" and now this! - M C S | 15 Aug 12 |
| My ticket was free but I was still tempted to leave at the interval. I actually felt uncomfortably embarrassed by the poor acting by TWG. - Ed Milner | 14 Aug 12 |
| Very disappointing, RSC actors, notably Scott Handy, were superb as usual, however the Americans were simply awful! I left at the interval - I have NEVER done that at a play before, especially not an RSC production -(I even stuck out Marat Sade till the end!) Totally agree with what is said in this review, the comment about the screens was exactly what I said about it! And MICROPHONES! In the Swan and beautiful intimate theatre space - really?! That is just poor! Bring back Richard III and King John next week!!!! - Hannah Kelly | 13 Aug 12 |
| I enjoyed this production, and agree that there is plenty of 'safe' Shakespeare to go round. The play lends itself to experimentation because it is so ambiguous in its meaning. There is no happy ending, no restoration of order. This isn't a play to leave you feeling comfortable - why should a production try to do so?The accents, I am told by a friend who knows from first hand experience, were not Irish- American but a good relfection of the way many First Nation peoples speak English. - Nick | 13 Aug 12 |
| Why are NO stars not an option. I thought this over-conceptualised. Possibly the audience was meant to think all civilisations today, whether aboriginal or European, have become morally impoverished to the degree that theatrical representation is reduced to concrete, unsubtle, literal gimmickry, almost entirely avoiding metaphor communicated through language, or in modern speak, TEXT. I understand that the director of the Wooster Group contribution to this farrago has gone on record as someone who does not like the theatre, does not like this play, and does not like Shakespeare. I adore experimental/radically challenging renditions of Shakespeare: why not employ someone to direct who does too? I did feel sorry for some very fine actors in both companies. - Jo Robertson | 12 Aug 12 |
| Saw this last night and would have left at the interval my companion had agreed. Every time the flaccid Americans came on stage, I wanted to laugh. It was bizarre to see them watching the video screens to carefully time their gestures and movements. I couldn't care less if they timed it correctly, but I cared that they didn't interact with each other- but with the screens. It was a relief when the Brits got back on stage. I have been coming to the RSC for 30 years, and I have never seen a production of such low quality, or one where I have reflected on the ticket price and wondered how else to spend the money. There was one bright note: At least Troilus didn't take his clothes off! RSC, please take note, this was truly terrible. - S Hughes | 12 Aug 12 |
| Weird is all I can say. Having never seen T & C the production made it very difficult to understand. Unfortunately tha American actors seemed more interested in copying the t.v. Screens round the stage than perform the play though Cressida and Paris were by far the best performers. The RSC team were better but not brilliant and seemed to use volume to give dramatic effect rather than acting. The play improved after the interval but never really got going. Watchable but.... - Simon | 12 Aug 12 |
| Had a fabulous afternoon at A Comedy of Errors and was really looking forward to an equally good evening.....Three of us had to leave at the interval and to be honest if we hadn't been sat right by the stage I'd have left after the first five minutes of the Trojans. It was truly awful. I couldn't hear a lot of what was being said even from my close proximity to the actors. What a waste of money and if we'd not been booked into the hotel we could have gone home to Cardiff there and then. - Kathryn | 11 Aug 12 |
| A few questions if I may: What exactly is “dangerous” about this production? Or innovative? Or letting us anything new about the play? This style of performance has been around since at least the 1970s. The only difference being that it’s hardly ever as badly done as here. - Schnurz | 10 Aug 12 |
| I have a hunch that most “traditional” theatre goers, especially those watching a Shakespeare play for the 20th time, are there because they want to be intellectually and emotionally challenged. Shakespeare is a master at this and so are the RSC on a good day. What they don’t go to the theatre for is to watch a bunch on self-indulgent “artists” muck around on stage – “dreamily” or not “dreamily”. What exactly is supposed to be good about “childlike” performances by adults? Sounds like a euphemism for incompetence to me. As others have said before: you can do whatever you want in the rehearsal room and whatever helps you to get your head around the play but the moment you bring it into the auditorium you are doing it for the audience and the audience alone! And what a waste to deliberately try not to engage them. Especially in a venue like the Swan. - Schnurtz | 10 Aug 12 |
| This is one of the directions modern theatre should be taking. I first saw the Woosters in a version of Tennessee Williams' "Vieux Carré" last year and it blew me away, so I was overjoyed to get the opportunity to see them again this year. Their use of sound and light is disconcerting in the most agreeable way, and the use of video to distract themselves - not us - from their own physical interpretation creates an effect that jolts us into new, unfamiliar and thus joyfully fresh ways of hearing the text. The collaboration was surely unnerving in some ways for all concerned, but this danger is precisely what is so refreshing to see on stage. For me the production is something to be plunged into without asking too many questions, like a dream, a new experience - in the way one might see a film by Lynch or Jarmusch. The thinking, the interpretation, comes later, and the effect stays with you for long afterwards. I hope audience members who LIKE the show will encourage all concerned, as it seems vital to me that this kind of experimentation should be allowed to flourish. So many other theatre productions seem dead in comparison to this freshness and creativity, coming from the same place as that which inhabits children earnestly, beautifully and movingly at play. It's joyfully, tragically DANGEROUS - and that is surely what so many "traditional" theatre-goers - who go out to be comforted and reassured - don't like... - Luke Askance | 10 Aug 12 |
| It is crap - I don't care how the Wooster Group usually work but there is a reason why Americans shouldn't do Shakespeare. I went on the 2nd night and 82 people left. The RSC have actually paid employees to sit in the audience on press night. Disgraceful - S Marriott | 10 Aug 12 |
| OK, it's fish vs fowl, and the foul is truly rank. But the RSC side of things was largely superb. Hilarious. Savage. Minus points for the Aussie Diomedes, but he's balanced by Cressida, who was very definitely played by the only actor on the Wooster side. Short skirted ladies in the gallery provided a welcome distraction from some of the Trojan scenes. - William Keith | 10 Aug 12 |
| A brilliant collision and collaboration from the RSC and the Wooster Group. I have not seen a play in years which would have so disturbingly and elegantly delivered the mood and message of a play quite so poignantly. And indeed, it is not a comfortable one. Yet it appears, that as the raging 1-star reviews show - the production did succeed in making a thought-provoking rendition of "Troilus and Cressida". I doubt a traditional "RSC" production would have garnered such a heat of responses. - R. Acker | 10 Aug 12 |
| I simply cannot understand anyone who found this a positive theatrical experience. It really was one of the most confused pieces of work that I have seen in over 30 years of theatre going. The RSC are right to experiment and I am prepared to believe that the Wooster Group can deliver work on their own terms that can be successful - but their approach to this was just inappropriate and poorly executed. And should you have to research and investigate before going to the theatre? No. The work must stand or fall on the basis of what is being presented in the auditorium. Audience members should be given all they need to appreciate what is going on from what they experience in the theatre. If you need to research or read detailed notes ahead of a show to know what the intention was behind the work and to understand what they have done then the director has failed. I want to see the RSC take risks but they also have to take responsibility when a risk doesn't pay off. - Mr Edgar | 10 Aug 12 |
| An endurance test . Every time the set turned to the Trojan half the audience seemed to groan inwardly. Stayed as in the front row but by the time we got out too late for our planned supper but a friendly waiter gave us a doggy bag for a late night supper the highlight of the evening! - Di Smith | 10 Aug 12 |
| Ignorance is not a critical perspective. Either do your homework or let someone else review the work you fail to understand and lack the professionalism to research. - Andrew Cowie | 10 Aug 12 |
| A touch of class at last at the RSC. BRAVO!!!! - coral | 10 Aug 12 |
| No-one here seems to have taken a look at how the Wooster group usually work. They are not interested in the text as such, but always use it as part of the fabric of their performance. All the native American scenes channel the snippets from the innuit film "Atanarjuat" which plays on the monitors. I take it a juxtaposition between the way Hollywood represents "Indians" & the way native Americans represent themselves. Not Shakespeare, but who cares? There is more than enough "proper" Shakespeare at Stratford. Handy's performance is very good, but also the most conventional aspect of this challenging but certainly highly interesting production. The parts never really come together, but there is a disconcerting strangeness about it which I found quite appealing. - Paul Greese | 10 Aug 12 |
| A complete farce. I only stayed beyond the interval as a courtesy to the RSC actors. If there had been two curtain calls, one for the Greeks and one for the Trojans I would have booed the Trojans. They could not act, could not speak clearly despite haaving microphones and did not understand the words. Until I spoke to someone in the interval I had reached the conclusion they must be amateurs. I think the RSC should offer a partial refund to those who paid good money for this. - Marjorie Smith | 10 Aug 12 |
| Left at the interval. Possibly the worst thing I have ever seen at 'professional' theatre. The Brits were pretty good, but the show was fatally undermined by the self-indulgent twaddle of the Wooster Group - white americans exuding pseudo-empathy with native peoples? Give me strength! - J Kerry | 10 Aug 12 |
| left at the interval. never done that before at RSC...a low point....yes Scott handy good, but the Americans were atrocious..like cartoon characters from South Park. 50 years a member of RSC...now considering if I will renew wish I could give this a minus rating - michael | 10 Aug 12 |
| We left in the interval. I have never done that before. What a waste of an evening. A strange concept poorly acted. - Heather J | 10 Aug 12 |
| At first I thought I should be looking deeper into the production incase it was brilliant. Alas, I searched in vain and I was on barren ground. To present Shakespeare where half the actors enunciate in an amplified yet flat monotone while watching film clips is beyond comprehension. The contrast between the Greeks and Trojans was intense: the Greeks (RSC) could act and the Trojans (Wooster Group) were prevented from doing so (it is reasonable to be charitable to the individuals). It seemed quite obvious that those who stayed for the second half did so out of courtesy rather than to enhance their understanding of Shakespeare. I am only grateful that it was unrecognisable as Troilus & Cressida and thus will not corrupt my view of this great work. The production may be summed up in that Achilles rushed from the flies for a curtain call, only realise that he was the only one and that the apathetic applause had already stopped. Like the audience, he turned on his heel and fled. - Nic Williamson | 09 Aug 12 |
| Having enjoyed going to the RSC for 41 years, we were truly disappointed that the RSC were drawn into this production with the dreadful Wooster Group. We wanted to walk out at the interval, but our friends (who were not enjoying it either) thought we should stay. A huge waste of an evening and money. - Ann Williamson | 09 Aug 12 |
| We endured this - a 30th birthday gift from my girlfriend and on paper, something different and exciting. In practice, a mess and a rubbish musical score that was surplus too! So, comedy Irish/American accents for us on our 150mile trip home - £56 well spent? Not quite. - Luke Moore | 09 Aug 12 |
| if my previous comment is published I should have given it a score of 1. - sylvie | 09 Aug 12 |
| Pretentious twaddle and an incoherent mess. The video screens were too small to provide anything other than a distraction. The Trojans were all wired for sound, making it difficult to know who was speaking and they robbed the verse of any meaning. Other ideas were just a sub-Derek Jarman hodgepodge, neither amusing nor engaging. Less, please. - Will Stafford | 09 Aug 12 |
| Certainly bewildering! Actors copying the actions of videos - and what did Mongomery Clift have to do with it? Plus Achilles in a red dress and Thersites as a transvestite in a wheelchair - no wonder about a third of the audience disappeared at the interval. I pity anyone for whom this was their first experience of Shakespeare! - R Hoskin | 08 Aug 12 |
| Fully agree. The native american aspect was bewilderingly inappropriate; Ajax a mere buffoon Troilus too old and sounded like a dalek. Ulysses was well acted but more than Hector was butchered in this truly awful production of a great play. Dont go! - JackieE | 07 Aug 12 |
| A shockingly bad production - A. Watson | 07 Aug 12 |
| dreadful - Anne Carvell | 06 Aug 12 |
