Synopsis In the beginning, there was a nursery, with windows opening on to a garden and beyond that the sea. A fragmented and dreamlike tale of friendship, loss, identity and love. Let us again pretend that life is a solid substance shaped like a glove, which we turn about in our fingers. Let us pretend that we can make out a plain and logical story so that when one matter is despatched - love for instance - we go on in an orderly manner, to the next. A multi-media production. A fragmented and dreamlike tale of friendship, loss, identity and love.
NOTE: This review dates from November 2006 and this production's original run at the National Theatre. Some casting has changed.
Director Katie Mitchell and her colleagues – eight actors, four musicians, designer Vicki Mortimer, lighting designer Paule Constable, tap-dance coach Donna Berlin – have been making Waves from Virginia Woolf’s 1931 novel about a group of six friends free-associating in what Woolf herself described as “dramatic soliloquies” from childhood to middle age.
Perhaps making rivulets, or stains, or puddles, would be more accurate a description of what goes on here. It is an intriguing technical exercise to subject stretches of Woolf’s opalescent prose and the tiniest of her characters’ internal reflections to the expository apparatus of video camera, sound effects, lamps and microphones that are all arrayed on a long table, as in a recording studio or tribunal hearing.
There is a distinctly hushed and reverential air to the proceedings, governed by the rise and fall of the tide and the shifting patterns of light from dawn to dusk. The actors read from small, dog-eared texts. But there is also a ruthless precision and brilliant amalgamation of so many technical elements reminiscent of the Wooster Group, say, or some of the more intense European companies.
A woman in bed feels the safety of the iron rail and we immediately have a filmed close-up of her foot. “My body has come into the room where the gilt chairs are,” and we have a quick flash of thigh and an instant conjuration of the railway journey impregnated with sexual arousal. The homosexual aesthete, Neville (Paul Ready), yearns for a companion and chomps on a large banana to the plangent strains of Donizetti’s “Una furtiva lagrima.”
We go from childhood in the magical school garden – peeping through hedges is done with little green sprigs – to schooldays, university, intimations of mortality (with make-up) on the tube in London, a dinner party in the jazz age, the smells and sighs of the shaving Bernard (Michael Gould), the despair and watery suicide of the married Rhoda (Anastasia Hille), all attended, supervised even, by the camera operators and fellow actors.
The crunch of gravel or the echoing pavements is done on flat squares, or flag stones, and on a couple of occasions – not enough, actually – the company coheres into a wonderfully coordinated tap dance. As the show concentrates so doggedly on the minutiae of the writing, I think Mitchell loses sight of the larger span of the original, its sense of the creation of a universe out of falling leaves, or flecks of dust. One of the actors with a posh voice (Kristin Hutchinson) does read some of the linking descriptive passages, but they don’t have any real binding effect.
This show will not be universally popular, but it is fascinating and will obviously appeal to lovers of Woolf’s writing, and those who have sobbed themselves to sleep while reading this book in adolescence. The dedication of the cast – which includes Sean Jackson, Liz Kettle and Kate Duchene – is beyond praise, and I think it marks a return to NT form for Mitchell after her baffling and disappointing version of The Seagull.
This is possibly the most unusual play I have ever seen, but for reasons I find hard to explain, I found it compelling and immensely watchable. The text seemed like stream of consciousness, and was presented both like a radio play and an art-house movie. What I don't understand is why we were constantly taken away from the text with reminders -- the sound effects, and the clever film excerpts -- of how articifial it all was. This was especially the case with the filming when what you saw on the screen was not what actually happened (e.g. different arms pouring the wine). But what is even less comprehensible to me is why I didn't mind that, and actually found it added to my enjoyment. So I loved it, but I can't really say why. And I'm sure there will be very many who absolutely hate it. Full marks to the actors and musicians. - 62.56.115.82)
13 Jan 07
I knew very little about this before going apart from some vague (and hardly encouraging) murmurings of the dreaded 'm' word - multimedia. But this riveting evening is another Katie Mitchell classic, and a complete reinvention of what we can understand as theatre. I was surprised that I found it all so moving - right down to the water spray and the toast - and felt myself gripped and entertained by this new experience in creativity and stagecraft. (The banana was crass though. One star off for that.) - 82.45.120.61)
05 Jan 07
I found this commpletely spellbinding from beginning to end. How the actors remembered everything they had to do is completely beyond me. Some beutiful images created by surprisingly simple means all merging wonderfully with the dreamlike text. Superb. - 62.244.178.30)
04 Jan 07
This is incredibly clever, but completely pointless. If you close your eyes, it's mysterious prose with a wonderful soundscape. If you leave them open, you are so spellbound by the artistry of the video and audio creations that the prose passes you by. So much wasted talent. I loved Katie Mitchell's take on Strindberg's Dream Play but I hated her take on The Seagull. A great theatre director seems to have gone the way of dramatists like Pinter and Churchill - so focused on creation as an intellectual processs that they forget they are creating drama to entetain people in a theatre. Maybe Mitchell should concentrate on directing Churchill - they deserve each other. The person who brought us terrific productions of The Machine Wreckers, Rutherford & Son, and The Phoenician Women is fast disappearing up her own backside. - 86.138.26.181)
04 Jan 07
2 stars - well, I'm generous that way! Katie Mitchell directs this production as if it were a radio play but with visual tricks to keep a theatre audience interested. I really tried to like it but, just as I was trying to get into it the moment was lost with all the messing about that goes on with the props and cameras. It's like I imagine a film is made, mostly a tedious procedure, But here Ms Mitchell has speeded it all up which helps a little to stave of the tedium. Some bits are clever for example when a piece of perspex a fragment of cloth and a plant sprayer combine to create, when projected on the big screen over the stage, a rain drenched window with a forlorn looking memember of the cast gazing through it as a voice over delivers VW's words. But, quite frankly, so what? It doesn't make for good theatre to see all the cogs turning. In fact it actually impinged badly upon VW's hauntingly beautiful prose. It seems as if the director, Katie Mitchell, doesn't really know what she wants from the piece. It could so easily have and perhaps should have been filmed for TV instead. A touch of the Ken Russell's if you get my drift but definitely without actors as stage hands messing it all up. My heart sank when I realised it lasted 2.40hrs and with only one 15min interval! I sat there after 20mins thinking do I get up now and leave, as some people were doing, or do I remain seated and suffer. As I was in the middle of a row I stayed and suffered. I love the theatre and would be the first to champion new ideas and ways of presenting works on stage. This, though, is not yet fully realised. It is still at an experimental stage for which the NT should not charge full whack for tickets. Occupying the Cottesloe with it seems a complete waste of resourses. I saw Ms Mitchell's recent NT production of the Seagull - even the amazing set could not redeem that. So how does she get two duff productions in a row staged? Mr Hytner you've taken your eye off the ball again!! Come on now! The History Boys is now history so get back to your NT office take control and start running the show again. - 172.207.59.202)
30 Nov 06
Good for about 15 minutes. After that they just repeat themselves for nearly 3 hours. Not nearly as clever as they think it is. After her dreadful Seagull, it seems Mitchell is slipping. Don't bother. - 81.151.179.213)
26 Nov 06
This is extremely frustrating because you feel like the production is doing everything it possibly can to stop you being transported into the world of the writing. It would be better on the radio, but it is not worth spending any of your hard earned cash to see this in a theatre - it takes the p*ss. - 172.202.94.37)
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.