Synopsis Resurrection Blues, is a satire on the ways that media hype, with official lies, helps to sustain the rule of corrupt government. The play is set in an unnamed Latin American country, where a young revolutionary is captured by the presiding military dictator. General Felix Barriaux seizes the opportunity to improve the country's finances by having the revolutionary executed and selling the television rights.
“It seems you guys made more progress yesterday when I wasn’t here” iconic Hollywood director Robert Altman tells the Resurrection Blues cast in a rehearsal report published in the Old Vic programme. By the end of a surprisingly shaky evening, I was beginning to wonder if wise old Altman really ought to have gone the distance and abandoned his actors to get on with making the most of this messy satire on the loss of faith in an age of mediocre mass media morality, eventually completed by Miller just one month before he died.
No one can deny that Kevin Spacey’s Old Vic has given this final statement by one of the giants of 20th-century drama its best shot. When you’ve assembled the likes of Neve Campbell, Jane Adams, James Fox, Matthew Modine and Maximilian Schell, put them to work on an ingenious bunker-like set created by old Broadway hand Robin Wagner, and then invited Altman on board, sparks of creativity really ought to be flying all over the place. Instead, the dream ticket has ended up as Resurrection Blues – the director’s cut, with all the comedy outtakes and fluffed scenes left in that could so easily have been abandoned on the rehearsal room floor.
Miller places the action high in the misty mountains of a flaky South American republic where revolution is stirring the poncho-wearing peasants living under the thrall of a messiah-like rebel leader who doesn’t exactly walk on water, considering the altitude, but at least walks through stone walls and appears at will in the form of a glowing heavenly light. This self-styled son of God has been captured by the bombastic, but sexually impotent, local dictator who arranges a spectacular mountain-top crucifixion and sells the television rights to fill the country’s coffers, put pipes in the sewers and send the local prostitutes to the dentist.
“Once it’s televised, there’ll be tour buses bumper to bumper across the Andes,” crows Schell’s blustering General Felix. Yet once the play gets under way, there’s bumper to bumper confusion across the board as Miller’s text veers between high old cartoon capers in the Andes, heady farce and a deep save-the-planet ‘message’ play signaling, as only he can, the importance of belief and faith in cynical times.
Nevertheless, despite it’s obvious problems, there is much to relish, especially Schell’s absurd cardboard cut-out dictator with a shrunken willie and Modine’s fresh-faced American media man who can only see the world in terms of photo opportunities and CNN mega-bucks, while Campbell has some good moments as a revolutionary who can’t face real life, as does Adams as a gushing television director with a right-on conscience. Fox, playing Felix’s philosophical cousin, seems to have strolled in from a completely different play. Still, Miller does throw some chinks of light on the curious world we live in today, even if it’s not divine.
Even the ushers looked embarrassed. Fox was terrible but agree with another reviewer that his speech about life and feelings etc in the second half had some very good lines. |Above all, it really made me reflect on the experience of theatre and how something which is usually uplifting can leave you very deflated if done badly. - 212.18.245.236)
12 Apr 06
I'm going to disagree slightly. I think it a moderately good script, with a lot of good or interesting ideas - the kind of thing the Old Vic should try. I DO think the set was terrible and stood in the way of the cast rather than abetting them. This play needs to be done in, around, over and under the audience, not at arms' length, on a pedastal. The scenery designer hasn't been reviewed poorly much at all, but he is the real culprit here, I think, along with the director for letting him put that chunk of whatever in the actors' way. - 69.134.153.189)
10 Apr 06
Sure, the play isn't "finished" in any meaningful sense of the word - I believe Miller changed the first version after being accused of "preaching" and if anything this could do with a little more directness in that vain now - and certainly the direction leaves much to be desired, but I didn't altogether hate it and there were some nuggets in there. But overall, of course it fails to get anywhere close to the promise of "Miller-Altman-Schell-Fox-Modine-Campbell-etc" and so it over-promises and under-delivers. I did find it thought provoking (and not in the "why am I here?" way that I feared having read some reviews!) and I'm not entirely clear as to what Miller's final views on religion are here. In terms of cast performances, Peter McDonald's Stanley comes out with the most credit, but the direction is so lacking that inevitably the acting suffers. It's not good, it's true (though it's not quite the car-crash theatre I'd been dreading), but I found myself enjoying it in places. - 62.255.32.15)
03 Apr 06
I rather wish I'd read some of the reviews on this site before seeing this production. Unimaginably dire. Enough wood to make Noah several hundred arks. Nothing insightful, nothing startling. I wished several times I was somewhere else - as did the cast for much of the play, I fear. - 81.170.19.30)
18 Mar 06
I went into the play thinking £25 was a good deal to see the play and left the play thinking, thank god I didn't pay the £40 face value of the ticket. Where do I start? Flawed story from the outset not improved by the flawed production. There is a valid point there in Miller's play but it just isn't given the proper dialogue or direction and the moral point of the story seems to get lost somewhere. The acting is incompetent a lot of the time and there just isn't enough material to hold your attention. I found myself drifting and napping on several occasions. Enough said. - 87.74.85.208)
12 Mar 06
Absolutely dire. Probably the very worst acting I've ever seen with a baffling lack of direction and an apparent total misunderstanding of the tone and themes of the piece. Under-prepared, mis-directed, mis-cast, over-hyped, over-priced and over here. An insult to anyone who paid to see it. I have to admit to having left at half time to watch a very good football match (Wigan vs Man U)in an ajacent pub and to drown out what I'd just paid £25 to see and expected so much from. I've seen Cloaca, The Philadelphia Story & Richard II at the Vic in recent times and have been disappointed by all of them, however, this was more astonishment at the utter complacency and ineptitude on show than disappointment. It will take something spectacular for me to spend any more time or money in Waterloo. - 82.108.212.250)
10 Mar 06
I saw it last night and for once I have to agrre with everyone else. I have no idea how this was allowed on stage. If it was food it would be sent back as not cooked.
If you want to see Miller go and see the Crucible.
- 213.86.133.215)
08 Mar 06
Somewhere buried here is a good idea trying to become a good play. In the hands of someone with more affinity with Miller (where are you, David Thacker?) a better production might have made up for some of its weaknesses. The fact that six leading actors all give clumsy, misguided performances suggests the production's failure is the responsibility of it's director (a fact also suggested by the programme notes and interviews Mr Altman has been giving!). If we're honest, Miller didn't write a good play in the last ten years of his life. It would have been better to keep this locked away (or to give it a lower profile production in more capable hands) and allowed us to continue to cherish the great plays - Death of a Salesman, All My Sons, View from a Bridge, The Crucible and The Price. Miller was one of the great playrights of the 20th century. This is a sad epitaph. I wish I'd saved my £40 for the transfer of the RSC's Crucible. - 86.130.207.61)
08 Mar 06
Truly awful; one of the worst things I have ever seen in a London theatre. One star is too many. Yes, Miller wrote it but it was not for full blown stage production, more for a studio showing I expect. If that. And you don't have to put everything a man writes on the stage - we'll be having his shopping lists soon. The man was a genius and this play is a clunker because he was also a human being. That this production lacks pace and any kind of stage sense doesn't help - frankly I think a group of fifth formers [ sorry, I mean year 10] could have made a better job of it. - 86.141.247.146)
07 Mar 06
Really poor. I too had been looking forward to this. Fluffed lines, a complete lack of direction or focus, some lamentable and downright embarrassing acting together with a mediocre play by the, oft-sublime Arthur Miller. Mr Fox seems so ill at ease and utterly miscast and yet has the best lines in a wonderful speech about 'life' in the second act, the only elegeic moment of the play. Ms. Campbell tries her best, but as with everything else about this production, fails. Even the extras seems 'contrived'. Really not worth seeing. Lamentable - 62.252.0.10)
The Old Vic is one of the oldest theatres in London and famous throughout the English speaking world. Long known as 'the actors theatre', many of the greatest performers of the last century have played on its stage. In September 2004, The Old Vic Theatre Company was launched, under the artistic leadership of Kevin Spacey, to present a wide range of work, from the classic to the new, to appeal to both traditional theatre-goers and new audiences.
Whatsonstage.com - Discount London theatre tickets, theatre news and reviews, Theatre videos, Theatre discussion, National Theatre Listings. Covering London's West End, all of Theatreland and all UK theatre. The best
for London Theatre Ticket Discounts.