 |
| A grainy image looking down on the Wyndham's Theatre from the Grand Circle. |
Watching two versions of the same play under different directors and then watching two different plays under the same director really helps to crystallise the role of the director and his importance to the production, while also highlights Ivo van Hove's clear artistic vision when compared to other directors. The production at Cheltenham wasn't bad, but it wasn't stellar either, as van Hove's 'A View from the Bridge' was: it was purely a very realistic/naturalistic portrayal of what set down on paper and nothing more, one might call it a literal interpretation. Using the same distinction, one would have to refer to van Hove's production as a literary interpretation - one which highlights important themes in the text and purposefully pushes them to the forefront. Though theatre can be an almost entirely aesthetic art, and a literal interpretation of a piece will always be valid, as the intention of the piece will be visible beneath the surface, theatre in its current form will always be most affective as a communicatory art, a force for change, a lens to highlight issues with this world and our species. Using this definition of 'literary', Ivo van Hove's 'A View from the Bridge' was indeed a very effective piece of theatre.
Though I doubt any of those seated on stage got a better view than those in the audience, the onstage traverse setting gave the impression of a courtroom with its jury and onlookers - indeed, the production was very much focussed on Alfieri's point of view. While the Everyman 'A View from the Bridge' took Alfieri's role of chorus as making him quite separate from the action, van Hove's production took it in almost the opposite direction, much in the spirit of 'Henry V', in which the chorus admits the audience to the story. In this production, the events weren't really occurring in reality, the were occurring in Alfieri's memory, and Alfieri really spoke directly to the audience, as opposed to just reading out a few monologues. The jury-audience and the empty, white playing-space in the centre, which later became a pool of blood, gave the impression that the play was Alfieri recounting the story to his conscience, and we, the audience, his conscience, were there to judge him for his actions or inaction that he recounts, as much to us as to himself. Further to this image was the fantastic scene of the immigration police pick-up in which Alfieri reads out the stage directions as the scene unfolds, in a threefold success increasing the pace and tension of the scene, furthering the image of Alfieri being the source of the story and demonstrating van Hove's keen understanding of Miller's literary work.
Speaking of pacing, however, the play's pace did suffer in parts, and in the lead-up to the boxing match in particular. The scene seemed like an devising exercise had been plonked directly into the production - that van Hove had told them in rehearsal to wait for as many beats of that infernal drum as was uncomfortable for them between each line - the intended effect of the laborious pace in that scene was obvious, and therefore didn't need to be strained as much as it was. What was even more unfortunate, that's the end of Act 1, so the point at which most audience members are expecting an interval is the most laborious and dreadful. Yes, the intended effect was to make the audience uncomfortable in the awkwardness, but it was more of a 'I want to get to the bar' awkwardness than an 'Oh gosh I hope nobody gets hurt' awkwardness.
The soundtrack was something of a gift and a curse. Interestingly similar to the Everyman 'A View from the Bridge', van Hove's production frequently featured a requiem, Fauré's to be precise, to highlight the play's mixture of Greek mythology with Christian theology. At times, this really worked in creating an ominous and oppressive atmosphere, for the sense that a tragic conclusion is already forgone and inevitable, for presenting, for example, Marco as avenging angel at the end of Act 1, yes, it really worked in those moments. However, there were other times, particularly in the meetings between Eddie and Alfieri, in which having any music at all sapped some of the power from the acting on stage - certain moments, especially in the last Alfieri/Eddie confrontation, in which a pause of breathless silence would have reverberated the power of the acting and shocked the audience members into an even more suffocated silence of anticipation, but this effect was missed. Interestingly, this was something that van Hove's 'Antigone' got right, acting through pauses between lines or words, and resonating emotion with silence, but he failed at points in this production. That being said, notable points in which the booming Requiem was magnificent - at the very opening with Alfieri's initial address to the audience, at the semi-climax between the end of the immigration police scene and the opening of the jail scene and the climax proper at the very end.
Watching Mark Strong's elegant, sleek and sophisticated portrayal of Merlin in the recent 'Kingsmen: The Secret Service' movie, I had doubts about Strong's capacity to play our longshoreman protagonist. However, as was most helpfully demonstrated in the opening shower scene*, Strong's physique is perfectly appropriate for the burly, muscular Eddie to inhabit. He played Eddie as a lot 'cleaner' than the Eddie in the Cheltenham production, and with more superiority as a father figure from the offset, which was an unusual way to see the dynamic played, and which made an awful lot of sense. The relationship between Eddie and Catherine was noticeably touchy-feely and physical, and very uncomfortably so since Strong set up the father-daughter dynamic so well. What was also disturbing was Catherine doing the same koala lift she does with Eddie on Rodolpho when she goes to have sex with him, the incestuous implications of which are just subtle enough to be shiver-down-your-spine unnatural.
In terms of the whole cast, the skill of each individual actor was unimpeachable. Alfieri is aforementioned as being especially good, he's also very reminiscent of Saul Goodman from 'Breaking Bad'. Rodolpho and Marco were believable as their characters, the accent was right, the level of hand-gestures for the two of them were spot on**, and the brotherly-love relationship was so believable that, knowing the story, it was heartbreaking to see them arrive so happy. Beatrice was much more independent and intelligent than her Cheltenham counterpart, and the two, Catherine and her, portrayed a fearsome and passionate range of emotion as the tensions mounted. Even the cameo of Eddie's friend - 'Hey Eddie, you wanna go bowlin'?' - was effective as a self contained piece of comic relief.
Overall, a 7.9/10 - I preferred it to 'Antigone' on the whole but there were some directorial choices which let it down and sometimes the balance between soundtrack and acting wasn't appropriate.
My Facebook page
*Which is actually superfluous to the script and plot, so thank you Ivo van Hove for including it nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment