If this were anyone but Tom Stoppard, I would have happily walked out. But my longtime admiration for the playwright--along with infrequent glimpses of his wonderful wit--kept me in my chair for all nine hours of this painful, turgid, ridiculously overwritten play. "Voyage" is the most enjoyable segment, though Chekhov did it better. "Shipwreck" has some strong moments in Act II, but the unrewarding "Salvage" is poorly named. The film backgrounds look like computer-game animation and quickly wear out their welcome. But nothing is more annoying than the projection of the month and year of what seem like hundreds of scenes (March 1835, April 1835, May 1835, etc.)--most of which consist of two people sitting listlessly and discussing political philosophy. Stephen Dillane, Will Keen and a few other actors distinguish themselves to, ultimately, little effect. - USER: Whatsonstage.com
16 Oct 02
I largely agree with Mark Shenton's review: for me the richness of the experience was slightly vitiated by a sense of Stoppard saying 'here's everything I've unearthed about Herzen at the British Library'. The result was more like a Radio 3 serialisation (if such a thing existed) than a valid theatrical experience. I never thought I'd say that about Stoppard!
The video work is ingenious and probably appropriate in the production, though I reckon I'd quickly tire of it if its use became widespread. (By the way, is that a modern car in the background of the Place de la Concorde projection - extreme stage left?)
I have a nagging suspicion that Stoppard's stature meant he was given free reign in preparing this trilogy, and it does him no favours. These plays desperately need an editor, because as a single evening or possibly a pair of plays they could be so much stronger than they are.
Hats off to the entire team who maintained such high standards during what must have been a gruelling near-12-hour experience. With each play running at well over 3 hours, it was a lot to ask! - USER: Whatsonstage.com
20 Aug 02
This is tough theatre, but it's a refreshing change for those of us who go the theatre to think, not just to sit passively and be prodded in the right places. It's a challenge. It's about a very challenging time. - USER: Whatsonstage.com
20 Aug 02
I saw the three plays last Saturday and my attention dipped once or twice. I wasn't disappointed because frankly I was amazed that anyone should tackle a topic so unsypathetic to our current political views. I felt like I could do a exam on the 19th century afterwards and pass pretty well. Perhaps that is the problem - we don't know about these bods and so much of the play had to tell us stuff. The arguments on ideas were too long - better to read them afterwards [buy the texts] But there was just enough verbal fun and character to take me through and I think these plays will stay with us , undigested as it were, as a great writer's crie do coeur. - USER: Whatsonstage.com
20 Aug 02
I thought that they were both brilliant, a masterpiece of writing. What a sweeping epic of historical importance, it was so lovely to hear political discourse on the stage; something to think about; something to talk about.
The play's remind you about Russia’s early history through these mid 19th century characters, and then ask's you to think about its more modern context thought via their influence.
I also think the titles give you an interesting way to think about the subject matter, people actually asked me if there was a shipwreck, and I think that the answer must be yes.
I loved them both and am looking foreword to seeing the third.
And even if you don't like them they are an 'event' to be noted. - USER: Whatsonstage.com
19 Aug 02
Rob Riley has misunderstood the function of miking in the Olivier. Simply, without such discreet assistance the place is an accoustical nightmare - especially in the circle. Until Trevor Nunn brought miking in a year or two back, I had studiously avoided booking seats anywhere other than the central front stalls area for many years (ever since I watched the less-than-clearly-enunciating Edward Petherbridge give a 100% unintelligible performance in The Rivals back in the early eighties). Now I don't mind where I sit. And nobody could seriously claim that the miking is intrusive, since it does not amplify the sound, but merely disseminates it around that vast amphitheatre.
Now to the plays. I saw all three yesterday, and it was a marathon in every sense of the word! Too much to digest in one day, if I'm honest. I largely agree with Mark Shenton's assessment: for me the richness of the experience was slightly vitiated by a sense, yes, of Stoppard saying 'here's everything I've unearthed about Herzen at the British Library'. The result was more like a Radio 3 serialisation (if such a thing existed) than a valid theatrical experience. I never thought I'd say that about Stoppard! The video work is ingenious and probably appropriate in the production, though I reckon I'd quickly tire of it if its use became widespread. (By the way, is that a modern car in the background of the Place de la Concorde projection - extreme stage left?)
I have a nagging suspicion that Stoppard's stature meant he was given free reign in preparing this trilogy, and it does him no favours. These plays desperately need an editor, because as a single evening or possibly a pair of plays they could be so much stronger than they are.
Hats off to the entire team who maintained such high standards during what must have been a gruelling near-12-hour experience. With each play running at well over 3 hours, it was a lot to ask!
A small PS to Mark Shenton: the NT HAS done such a thing before: all 3 plays in The Mysteries were done as a trilogy every Saturday during their run, and their productions too came all of a piece - at least in the 1998 revival.
Job - USER: Whatsonstage.com
18 Aug 02
It is invidious to disagree with Rob Riley. He saw only the last play in the trilogy, and my wife Gaynor and I have only seen the first two in preview. I have only given a score of 4 because I haven't seen the final play, but after two consecutive evenings, we were really disappointed not to be able to share in the final instalment of this epic work. We are booked for later in the month for 'Salvage'. For a better understanding of my opinion of this trilogy you could read my review of the first two plays at http://homepage.dtn.ntl.com/wellfurlong/theatre/stoppard.htm#Russia, but though it sounds boring, believe me, it is not! Sir Tom is a great playwright, and while these plays are about abstract concepts, they depict real people, and by that I don't mean people who really existed, but people who live in a real family, and in a working, social world, as we all do, but have ideas, no matter how unrealistically idealistic. These people are not heroic, and their beliefs change over the years, but they know that 'something is wrong with the picture.' Here it is chiefly serfdom, the owning of 'souls', but also censorship of any opinion thought tobe critical of the Tsar's government, and so suppression of any radical literature.
It sounds so heavy, but it's not, because it's about characters that you believe in and care about, and that is what Theatre is all about. - USER: Whatsonstage.com
08 Aug 02
I think Mr Riley is a little harsh. It is best probably to see all three plays and let the build of characters take you through. The technology at the National is at last put to good use [and will probably start a fashion for video backdrops]Nothing in the plays moved me as much as Invention of Love or made me laugh as much as Arcadia but I think Utopia will grow on us and it already feels to me like work that can be studied and viewed again.
Lynette - USER: Whatsonstage.com
08 Aug 02
This comment is re "Salvage," not "Voyage" (I was in London for only a few days and had only the opportunity to see the one play. I should also stipulate that the performance I attended was a preview). Briefly: I agree with your reviewer that T.S. might have been well advised to distill his vast volume of material into a single play- rather than a bloated, verbose, and self-indulgent trilogy (okay, maybe "Voyage" and "Shipwreck" were brilliant, but I wouldn't guess that from "Salvage"). I consider myself a Stoppard fan, and as an actor, had the great pleasure of playing James Joyce in the Chicago premier production of "Travesties" in 1979. But "Salvage" lacks the dizzying, complex cleverness of the earlier work. And it fails to compensate for that lack with any greater degree of profundity. To me it seemed merely episodic, sort of an educational slide show for the politically impaired. With the body-miked actors and the expensive but worthless rear projections, I half expected the new Buick to come wheeling out on that gigantic lazy susan ("lazy" is the operative word). Trevor Nunn directed "Les Miz?" Why doesn't that surprise me? It happened that earlier that day I had seen Mark Rylance's excellent "Twelfth Night" at the restored Globe- without body mikes, without rear projections, without a revolve, without even stage lighting- and the delight I and the rest of the Globe audience felt was utterly opposite to the stultifying boredom of "Salvage."
I'd be tempted to comment that this demonstrated the deterioration of theatre in the last few hundred years, but that would be unfair: the same week, I was hugely entertained and edified not only by "Twelth Night," but by "Oh What a Lovely War" at Regents Park, and by "Edward III" at the RSC in Stratford. But, for me (despite the fine performances), "Salvage" just didn't work. - Rob Riley, Chicago - USER: Whatsonstage.com