Reader Reviews
The Cherry Orchard (Olivier (National Theatre), West End)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | We left at the interval. The stage was too big and there seemed to be no bond between the actors. As if a bunch of teenagers were given Shakespeare and told to get on with it without direction. Was a real shame. - Liz | 08 Sep 11 |
| Too big a stage, dreary sets and patchy performances made for a rather blighted Cherry Orchard. I love Zoe, but she wasn't right in the part, Penny Wilton would have found the character. And no one was helped by an adaptation that borders on the crude - Checkov would have chopped the trees down himself in Act I. Never mind there's always the next time. - rds | 03 Aug 11 |
| Perhaps spoiled by the lightness and naturalism of Arcola's Seagull which brought Chekhov to such vibrant sparkling life, this version seems plodding, theatrical and by-the-numbers by comparison, the stage too big, keeping the players apart. Wanamaker does emotion well, but she's drowned by the set, the largeness of the space and the heaviness of it all. The National's After the Dance was poignant and memorable in the way it chronicled a passing of a way of life, and every character in that play lived and breathed and evoked empathy. That's how this play should be, where a way of life is passing away, but here you just want to slap most of the characters, and feel they're just getting what they deserve, which fails to connect with Chekhov's empathetic non-judgemental core. I mean, Rattigan cannot be that much better than Chekhov, can he? So it's this production which weighs him down. Trofimov is so insufferable here, I wanted to grab the loaded gun and shoot him. Three performers do the play justice, however, and earn the three star rating that makes this production serviceable: Leith is an excellent Lophakin, prudent, forthright, compassionate, wise, practical, everything Lophakin should be; Tim McMullan is hilariously soused and shameless as the profligate Simyonov-Pischik (and is the one character who would have fit perfectly into After the Dance); but it is Kenneth Cranham's simply splendid Firs that redeems this production. Cranham can convey more pertinent information, using just his eyes, than some actors can do with reams of monologues. - Steve | 30 Jul 11 |
| If you love the play - see this. If you don't know the play - see this ! It has to be the best production I have ever seen. There have been some wonderful Ranevskayas, and Zoe Wanamaker is right up there with them, but this whole cast are pretty much faultless. What's more the Travelex sponsorship makes the ticket prices the best deal going. - J Evans | 22 Jul 11 |
| There has been much criticism of Andrew Upton's adaptation of Chekhov's original text and it is true that there are some modern anachronisms, some Americanised pronounciations and even a pointlessly clumsy quote from a 1960's Animals song. However, for me it brought to life a play that I have previously found interminably dull. Howard Davies and Bunny Christie have breathed new life into Russian drama in the Lyttelton and they do it again here, even if they have reacted to the vast space of the Olivier by making it a proscenium stage - just like the Lyttelton in fact. Davies utilises the large cast expertly and there are a host of excellent performances. Zoe Wannamaker captures Ranyevskaya's financial recklessness and emotional core, James Lauraenson is touching rather than irritating as her childlike brother and Mark Bonnar, although too old as the eternal student, looks forward to the events which will soon engulf Russia. Conleth Hill is better than I have seen him before as Lopakhin, hinting at his peasant roots despite his new wealth and superbly conveying his mixture of anger, frustration but devotion to Ranyevsyaya when he buys her beloved house and orchard - whisper it softly but Hill is better than Simon Russell Beale was at the Old Vic. Chekhov diehards may not find this to their taste but this is an exciting new version of The Cherry Orchard. - David Baxter | 20 Jul 11 |
| Very poorly directed, if directed at all. One paced and lifeless. With a few exceptions, crassly acted. The characters lacked humanity. Confirmed what Chekhov himself said: "Actors never seem to watch ordinary people." Nor, it would seem, do directors. - JL | 01 Jul 11 |
| Thank goodness others seem to have hated this as much as I did. I could not wait for the intermission so I could leave. Had I not been seated in the middle I would have snuck out before. Glacial does not begin to describe the pacing. Casting was haphazzard with some good and some just plain annoying acting. I have never been so happy to leave a theatre. - Alana | 01 Jul 11 |
| I approached this production with some trepidation because most of the reviews I've seen have been tepid, to say the least. But I was pleasantly surprised. The set by the brilliant Bunny Christie was breathtaking, enhanced by Neil Austin's superb lighting. Andrew Upton's updating of the text did not grate as much as I expected, and there were only a very few intrusive modernisms. Zoe Wanamaker is incapable of giving a poor performance, and here she excelled as the endearing Ranyevskaya, a woman who refuses to face the truth until she is forced to. Conleth Hill's Lopakhin was impressive, as was the underestimated Claudie Blakley as Varya. Why do we not see more of her on stage? I feel that this translation emphasises the political elements of the play more decisively than the subtle Chekhov intended, and the histrionic Mark Bonnar as Trofimov did nothing to play down the suggestion of didacticism. Chekhov saw the truth of what was to come for Russia, and this production, a few slight niggles apart, did full justice to his vision. - sc | 21 Jun 11 |
| Some excellent performances and a love-it or hate-it set, but the 'modernised' language was anachronistic and coarse and jarred somewhat. - Michael | 19 Jun 11 |
| Considering that I wasn't keen on the play, I feel that this play contained the humour and pathos that Cherkov had wanted. Previous production of the play have been really slow and miserable, but there was an element of comedy that lifted this play up. Although, there were points in which I did wish they would hurry up - s | 22 May 11 |
| Uninspired performance, poor translation. Typically predictable NT fare. - ludo | 19 May 11 |
| A beautiful production, well acted for the most part scuppered by the worst translation the National has allowed onto its stage for many a year. I don't care if a script is intelligently updated but asking these characters to utter 'bollocks', 'crap', '60K','frigging', 'bozo' etc etc was simply crass. I would have expected a director like Howard Davies to give it a run through in rehearsal and then say thanks but no thanks - or set it in a 20th Century board room. No No No! - KJ | 19 May 11 |
| I didn't even make as far as the interval - dull script, lifeless performances and a very strange set which made Ranyevskaya look like she lived in a disused aircraft hangar. - js | 18 May 11 |
| Not quite the sum of its parts. - Gouther | 18 May 11 |
| I seriously considered leaving at the interval and wish I had done so. - jon | 18 May 11 |
| Very disapointing, messy, production with a coarse adaptation and weird miscasting. - Faz | 16 May 11 |
