|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News from Bree
spymaster@theonering.net
Jul 23 2014, 10:26am
Post #1 of 5
(304 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Richard Armitage in The Crucible - review
|
Can't Post
|
|
 As TORn's readers know, our very own Thorin Oakenshield actor Richard Armitage is currently appearing as John Proctor in The Crucible at The Old Vic in London. Staffer greendragon went along to see the show, and she's written up what she says is "half review, half an attempt to capture the atmosphere for those who won't get to see this production". Here's what she had to say:
My last trip to The Old Vic was to see another Hobbit cast member: Sir Ian McKellen was appearing there as Widow Twankey, in the pantomime Aladdin. That was back in 2005; and years before that, when I was not yet even a teenager, I used to have a season ticket to see all four shows each year at the theatre. At that time, The Old Vic was a familiar friend; but as I entered the venue this July, it was barely recognizable - not because of my long time away, but because of the unusual set-up of the space for the Old Vic's "theatre in the round" season.
Long lines of people waited patiently to get into that evening's performance; the house was full, using all the seats circled around the stage. (I asked an usher where the nearest Ladies' restroom was, and was rather surprised to receive the answer, "Just walk across the middle of the stage and you'll see it in front of you." Really?? In fact, that is exactly what I did, weaving amongst the wooden chairs "haphazardly arranged, just one overturned" which made up the scant "preshow" set.)
The walls of the theatre were draped with grey, grubby ground cloths, covering the Old Vic's ornate auditorium. The set was made up of exposed brick and concrete, with a solid, grey floor with metal tracks (not used in this production, but presumably for a truck in another show) running across the middle. The effect was of being in an abandoned warehouse of some kind, an industrial, stark and yet somehow timeless space. As we gradually took our seats, smoke drifted through the space, and there was a smell of burning herbs. A quiet, dull but insistent throb hummed in the background, nagging at the subconscious. Our eyes, ears and noses were all being drawn into the tense atmosphere of Salem before the show even began.
The lights dimmed, and Tituba, Reverend Parris' Barbadian servant, entered, chanting and wafting smoke from the cauldron of burning herbs. Her incantations seemed to conjure the players - people began to stride into the space. Dour, silent, eyes downcast and almost faceless in the half light, the cast filled the stage, some standing, some sitting; the tall, bearded figure of John Proctor took up a central seat. A pause, and then they raised their eyes to look accusingly at the voyeurs surrounding them. Right from the start, this was a production which was not going to let the audience off the hook; we are as guilty as any in this hysteria.
As the cast of unhappy villagers began to leave the scene, removing chairs as they went, Abigail Williams and her gaggle of girls strode on. They looked strong, intimidating, a gang who were in control, so much so that they brought with them the set for the first scene: Betty Parris' bedroom.
This silent action at the opening was mirrored several times throughout the production. Arthur Miller's play is not short, but here it was further lengthened by mimed interplay between scenes. Furniture was moved on and off by the cast, passing and crossing each other with baleful stares or averted eyes. Usually it was Abigail and her gang who created the scenes, reminding us each time how the power in Salem had been put into the hands of children.
The Crucible is a play which astonishes me each time I see it. Miller's writing is almost unbelievably powerful; so compelling is the piece, that pretty much any staging of it is likely to be decent. Director Yael Farber and her cast achieve much more than just decent; this is a dark, brooding, intense production. Costumes and furniture evoke the 17th century, but are so stark and minimal that they could almost be any period. Thus Farber succeeds in reminding us of the harshness of life in Massachusetts of the 1600s, but at the same time we feel that the action could be unfolding anywhere, in any time. We see how frightened people, feeling threatened, look for any scapegoat; how those on whom the blame might fall will point the finger at others, in order to escape; and how those in power can easily be swept down a path, from which they are too embarrassed to turn when it seems they have made a mistake. The speed with which things unravel in Salem is shocking, yet all too believable. Reverend Hale appears to put words in the girls' mouths, in his eagerness to help the community to find the source of their troubles; when he himself begins to see the errors they are all making, it is too late to turn back. The dangers of religion and law becoming blended and confused, and church dictating to state, are scarily relevant today.
In all this gloom and anxiety, however, Farber's production also brilliantly highlights the comedy of Miller's script. Again, I was repeatedly struck by the strength of this play; Miller's point is razor sharp, yet his writing contains humour, and somehow room for doubt and questioning. Delivering this incredible text, some actors fared better than others: William Gaunt as Giles Corey, Paddy Navin as Sarah Good and Adrian Schiller as Reverend John Hale stood out to me as being particularly compelling. Anna Madeley, who played Proctor's wife Elizabeth, was also powerful, but occasionally her performance was marred by indistinct speech, a problem which plagued a few of the cast.
 Richard Armitage was, as one would expect, a strong central figure in the maelstrom whirling around him. With a short, stubbly beard, and closely cropped hair, he was a dark presence, often only half lit, just the kind of role he believes suits him best! (To quote Richard: "Do you know what? I've always said of myself, I look better in the dark and I look better dirty.") He, too, was occasionally unclear in his speech; and sometimes he seemed rather stuck in declamatory mode, delivering lines such as "We will burn together!" [hmm, sounds familiar...] in a manner which seemed melodramatic in this stark, revealing play. This high intensity was vocally evident; several reviewers have mentioned the hoarseness and strain which can be heard in his usually rich, mellifluous voice. Susannah Clapp, in The Guardian newspaper, wrote that the production "contains some unnecessary keening and writhing. It also contains a lot of shouting. Everyone is nearly always at full roar, sometimes improbably so: would two clandestine lovers really start yelling at each other in his house? The poison of rumour relies on stealth as well as force." Certainly, I would have liked to see Armitage trust his wonderful stillness more; in the intimate scenes between Proctor and his wife, his performance was utterly compelling.
Overall, this excellent production of an outstanding play didn't quite manage, for me, to climb to extraordinary heights. It's hard to say exactly why this was. Fascinating programme notes once AGAIN reminded me of Arthur Miller's genius and insight; but I was left without feeling that I had seen Yael Farber's own insight. I wanted her to show me something else in the play, something which had special meaning for her and for her cast. This is not to say that I wanted some "unusual" staging just for the sake of it, nor that I needed a "different take" on the play. I just wanted to feel more how the words spoke to Farber, and to the actors; what did they each take away from it, personally?
When Elizabeth tells John, "Whatever you will do, it is a good man does it", I found myself wondering what Miller intended when he wrote those words. Did he want to forgive his friend Elia Kazan, who had cooperated with the House Un-American Activities Committee? Or perhaps the action of the play seems rather to highlight this cooperation, confessing to "sins" you did not commit as the greatest crime, and it is only by avoiding this capitulation that Proctor finds his "good". Miller's writing leaves room for us to ponder these questions; but I left the Old Vic wondering if Farber had come to any conclusions in her own mind. Not sensing her insight, I wasn't quite as exhilarated by The Old Vic's The Crucible as I might have been.
This is, however, a minor point, which reduced the production to "only" excellent and fascinating theatre, (as opposed to mind-blowingly extraordinary theatre!). According to Kevin Spacey (The Old Vic's Artistic Director), Richard Armitage "has wanted to play John Proctor since his late teens". It's a great role for Armitage, and a wonderful chance to see him on stage, in a compelling production. The Crucible runs at The Old Vic until 13 September; do go and see it if you can.
[Book tickets for The Crucible]
(This post was edited by dernwyn on Jul 23 2014, 4:13pm)
|
|
|
ShireHorse
Rohan
Jul 23 2014, 6:42pm
Post #3 of 5
(249 views)
Shortcut
|
when you went to see this performance?
For the moment, I've just got a couple of comments.
With regard to the 'train tracks' on the stage: these were meaningful to several people I know because they suggested the trains to Belsen. I just rather prosaically thought that they were there to help the actors position themselves and the furniture. But, after a couple of cyberfriends independently mentioned the association with the Holocaust, a journalist who interviewed Farber also suggested the same, although it wasn't actually clear whether or not she had actually confirmed this.
But, I believe that this is the sort of thing that elevates this production above so many others and makes it great and not just very good: it means different things to different people whether they are aware of the McCarthy element or not. Many in the audience have read some kind of personal message in it and have been reduced to tears at the end of it.
"I was left without feeling that I had seen Yael Farber's own insight. I wanted her to show me something else in the play, something which had special meaning for her and for her cast."
But surely this is Farber's genius? She has not forced any interpretation of her own upon the audience. Miller's play has a Shakespearean quality to it and so has Farber's interpretion: just as you never know what Shakespeare actually thinks, so you are unaware of what Farber thinks either. You take the essence of the play and make of it what you will.
(This post was edited by ShireHorse on Jul 23 2014, 6:43pm)
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Jul 23 2014, 9:47pm
Post #4 of 5
(237 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I cannot give a review until after saturday night but..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But surely this is Farber's genius? She has not forced any interpretation of her own upon the audience. Miller's play has a Shakespearean quality to it and so has Farber's interpretion: just as you never know what Shakespeare actually thinks, so you are unaware of what Farber thinks either. You take the essence of the play and make of it what you will
A few of the prestigious broadsheet reviews have praised Farber for not putting her stamp on it because The Crucible is a play that comes with the baggage of McCarthyism. As such, it is often produced and directed as if it were a lecture, a piece to be endured for one's education, with the message rammed home instead, she has, as the critics have said, left the play open to interpretation and thus given The Crucible a broader and yet more personal message for our time. The lack of a direct message is what makes this production of The Crucible interesting , it is as some critics have commented, what makes this production great, if not radical because Farber has abandoned the obvious, has stripped the play of it's academic discourse, it's English Lit 101 study notes and let Miller's words stand on their own.
In Theatre, as in film, or even the best TV dramas, ambiguity is the catalyst for thought provoking, to ram some message home, to leave a mark or overly interpret a work, can leave the viewer/audience numb and without thought. I had the privilege of seeing Jerusalem with Mark Rylance, and the ambiguities left in that play, especially the finale, are what makes me think about the themes and that play today, three years after seeing it on the stage, It's why i love films like Bladerunner and Terrence Malik's Badlands, films that leave one thinking because the director has not told the audience what to think.
I think The Crucible is a special case because it is a play that is often weighed down by it's own baggage, the finest Shakespeare productions, the one's that have gone down into the annals of theatre history, the best productions are the one's that peel away the baggage often layered upon them by academic interpreation and leave the words and the performances to speak for themselves. This from what I have read is what Farber is trying to achieve with her production of the Crucible.
|
|
|
ShireHorse
Rohan
Jul 25 2014, 1:07pm
Post #5 of 5
(209 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Let me just add, greendragon, that this is a beautiful, evocative review.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It too me back. And now I am just dying to see it again next Wednesday.
The reason why I asked when you saw it was because, IIRC, you saw it when I did, in the first week of July. It was at this time that people reckoned that RA had a cold, which accounted for his hoarseness. I also brought a cold back from London after the audience coughed all over me. No-one has mentioned his voice failing in the last couple of weeks, which is good.
I agree that I could sometimes not hear what many of the cast were saying. This was partly due to them standing with their backs to me but I think that the sheets draped over the balconies everywhere must also take some responsibility: surely these must deaden the sound and interfere with the acoustics? There are pros and cons to everything.
A couple of critics objected to the amount of shouting but I do honestly think that the situations in the play and the 'bigness' of this particular production call for it. I think it was The New York Times critic who said that it was operatic: and, of course, RA gets to deliver some of the big 'arias'.
And that Guardian critic you quoted did not write the main review (which was by the highly respected Michael Billington who gave it 5 stars). I don't think she was concentrating, LOL. Her point - "would two clandestine lovers really start yelling at each other in his house?" - is lost on me because Abigail and Proctor are not in his house but upstairs in the Parris household where a group of villagers are singing downstairs. And one should suspend one's disbelief, anyway.
The latest reports back on the production by those who have seen it several times claim that it is still in flux and that RA just gets better and better with more variation in his delivery. Many people say how he reduces the audience to tears (and that includes a surprising number of men) by the end of the play. I shall also report back in a week on any differences.
|
|
|
|
|
