2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 3, 2018 15:52:33 GMT
The one thing that people tend to know about Strindberg is his pathological misogyny. I haven’t seen this yet but any modern adaptation of his play (and there are many, given the problematic original) has to take note of that. It is unsurprising that generations of men have lauded his original version as a searing study of sexual politics, as it is so obviously written as a male fantasy. At this moment in history, it’s a good time to have another look at it. Given that most papers/websites reviewing ‘The Writer’ managed to work out that having a woman doing so might be more illuminating, it’ll be interesting to see if they do that here.
A few quotes from Strindberg to clarify what makes taking his play and making it both less male and addressing questions of race mean, in this context. My apologies for relaying such horrific views but I think the conversation requires it. Strindberg, in letters, translated by Meyer, wrote 'Black man is bad man...If I rate the black race below the white, it is grounded on experiences which have shown that the black are inferior to the white.'' Then again, how about 'Woman, being small and foolish and therefore evil.....should be suppressed, like barbarians and thieves. She is useful only as ovary and womb.'' You can almost see his contemporary through time, the incel keyboard warrior or alt right frat boy. Denying Strindberg his ‘slut shaming as art’ is long overdue, whether in this version or a future one.
Personally, the best version I’ve seen I think, was Katie Mitchell’s stage/film version which used the camera to have us watch it through the eyes of the maid.
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jun 4, 2018 8:10:47 GMT
Stenham's a terrible playwright who only is where she is due to her connections.
Baby I'm sorry (I'm not sorry).
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jun 4, 2018 8:12:32 GMT
This is not a casting issue per se. Stenham is quoted in The Guardian as saying that she wrote the character as black because she saw that as a “radical” choice. I would be very grateful if someone could explain what that means. Means her world is so middle class and white that *gasp* FALLING IN LOVE WITH A BLACK MAN OF A LOWER CLASS is, like, totally radical, and, like, issue-based? And relevant? And yah. (I really don't like Stenham can ya tell...)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 9:22:49 GMT
This is not a casting issue per se. Stenham is quoted in The Guardian as saying that she wrote the character as black because she saw that as a “radical” choice. I would be very grateful if someone could explain what that means. Means her world is so middle class and white that *gasp* FALLING IN LOVE WITH A BLACK MAN OF A LOWER CLASS is, like, totally radical, and, like, issue-based? And relevant? And yah. (I really don't like Stenham can ya tell...) Thanks, Frenchie! I got pilloried on here for suggesting the same...
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jun 4, 2018 10:01:08 GMT
Means her world is so middle class and white that *gasp* FALLING IN LOVE WITH A BLACK MAN OF A LOWER CLASS is, like, totally radical, and, like, issue-based? And relevant? And yah. (I really don't like Stenham can ya tell...) Thanks, Frenchie! I got pilloried on here for suggesting the same... No problem Mixed-raced marriages/relationships have been commonplace for so long that it's not radical in any way! Ditto for same-sex relationships. Radical would be something like a black Julie and a white Jean - if only because having a black woman in the position of power is still rare.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 10:10:56 GMT
Stenham's a terrible playwright who only is where she is due to her connections. Baby I'm sorry (I'm not sorry). Her connections?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 10:16:29 GMT
From her Wikipedia entry:
"She attributes her love of theatre to her father (who was chair of various arts organisations such as the Royal College of Art and Institute of Contemporary Arts), as he took her to various shows from a young age, including many at the Royal Court Theatre which would later stage her first play.
Educated at the private boarding school Wycombe Abbey and later Rugby, she spent a gap year travelling and working for the Ambassador Theatre Group and the Arcola Theatre. It was during this time that she enrolled in the Royal Court Young Writers Programme and wrote her first play."
So I don't know how connected she was during her time working for ATG and the Arcola, but certainly a privileged upbringing with some posh schools involved.
|
|
68 posts
|
Post by lewis on Jun 4, 2018 11:14:12 GMT
Stenham's a terrible playwright who only is where she is due to her connections. Baby I'm sorry (I'm not sorry). Her connections didn't write 'That Face'. I'm all for addressing privilege and calling out bad work, but privilege doesn't automatically cancel out artistic achievement.
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jun 4, 2018 11:16:41 GMT
From her Wikipedia entry: "She attributes her love of theatre to her father (who was chair of various arts organisations such as the Royal College of Art and Institute of Contemporary Arts), as he took her to various shows from a young age, including many at the Royal Court Theatre which would later stage her first play. Educated at the private boarding school Wycombe Abbey and later Rugby, she spent a gap year travelling and working for the Ambassador Theatre Group and the Arcola Theatre. It was during this time that she enrolled in the Royal Court Young Writers Programme and wrote her first play." So I don't know how connected she was during her time working for ATG and the Arcola, but certainly a privileged upbringing with some posh schools involved. And from his obit: "As well as building a modern art collection of his own and for Unilever, Stenham had chaired the Royal College of Art (1979-81) and the Institute of Contemporary Art (1977-87). He had also been on the boards of the Museum of London, the Design Museum, the Architectural Association, the Theatres Trust and other arts organisations." Lyn Gardner and Ben Brantley from NYT (rightly) condemned That Face as a trite piece of blame-the-bad-mother writing. Fair play to Stenham for having a work ethic, but never forget she has never needed cash in her life (she has bought an art gallery), and so "real life" will never get in the way of churning out sub-par scripts in full, unlike her peers who have to work full-time and find time to write around their working hours.
|
|
|
Post by MrsCondomine on Jun 4, 2018 11:18:56 GMT
Stenham's a terrible playwright who only is where she is due to her connections. Baby I'm sorry (I'm not sorry). Her connections didn't write 'That Face'. I'm all for addressing privilege and calling out bad work, but privilege doesn't automatically cancel out artistic achievement. If they had, it'd probably be a better piece of writing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 11:32:02 GMT
Fair play to Stenham for having a work ethic, but never forget she has never needed cash in her life (she has bought an art gallery), and so "real life" will never get in the way of churning out sub-par scripts in full, unlike her peers who have to work full-time and find time to write around their working hours. And in the words of Fraulein Schneider, so what?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 4, 2018 11:41:48 GMT
Fair play to Stenham for having a work ethic, but never forget she has never needed cash in her life (she has bought an art gallery), and so "real life" will never get in the way of churning out sub-par scripts in full, unlike her peers who have to work full-time and find time to write around their working hours. And in the words of Fraulein Schneider, so what? Exactly, and such an attempted hatchet job also omits that her father died the day before 'That Face' was chosen by the Court and that her estranged alcoholic mother (who the ushers had to keep an eye on in case she caused trouble) also died five years ago (Stenham is around about thirty I think). Facts which go some way to explaining why she might have extra money to spare. Still, it's not quite as bad as a certain poster calling Anya Reiss 'subhuman', that was about as horrific as it could get.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 4, 2018 11:54:35 GMT
Radical would be something like a black Julie and a white Jean - if only because having a black woman in the position of power is still rare. That wouldn't work at all in the context of the play - the point of the play is that Julie's relationship has to be in some way taboo and disapproved of by her father. In the original it is due to social class. In this version it appears (very improbably) to be because Jean is black - a muslim Julie and a white Jean might work, so her old father might actually disapprove of the match in some circumstances.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 4, 2018 13:03:00 GMT
Having watched this production, the fact that Jean is played by a black actor playing a Ghanaian, has little if any bearing on the way this version has been a) written and b) directed.
It is simply not investigated or pointed towards as an "issue" in this production.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 13:06:37 GMT
Radical would be something like a black Julie and a white Jean - if only because having a black woman in the position of power is still rare. That wouldn't work at all in the context of the play - the point of the play is that Julie's relationship has to be in some way taboo and disapproved of by her father. In the original it is due to social class. In this version it appears (very improbably) to be because Jean is black - a muslim Julie and a white Jean might work, so her old father might actually disapprove of the match in some circumstances. I should think there are plenty of black (and other ethnicities) parents that would be displeased by their daughter having a relationship with a white man. In terms of "the context of the play" - adaptations really need to keep the essence of the play; I think the context is a bit more up for grabs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 21:20:57 GMT
Now that I have seen this I think I have an idea of what Stenham was trying to do, but she hasn’t got there yet - and from the other examples of new writing I have seen at the RNT so far there is no one at that institution who is insightful enough to help its young writers understand the plays they are writing. This needs a few more drafts and Stenham should have been encouraged to do this because there is something very interesting here. The blender bit should have been a powerful moment instead of which people were laughing, probably because they weren’t emotionally invested. The lead actress is a star, I gather (I don’t watch a lot of TV) and it felt as though a lot of her fans were in. The party scenes left me wondering what has happened to young people if that’s what they call a good party. As for Christina...are young women so lacking in perception these days? If that was me I would never have gone to bed and left Jean and Julie alone together.
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 4, 2018 21:37:11 GMT
Now that I have seen this I think I have an idea of what Stenham was trying to do, but she hasn’t got there yet - and from the other examples of new writing I have seen at the RNT so far there is no one at that institution who is insightful enough to help its young writers understand the plays they are writing. This needs a few more drafts and Stenham should have been encouraged to do this because there is something very interesting here. The blender bit should have been a powerful moment instead of which people were laughing, probably because they weren’t emotionally invested. The lead actress is a star, I gather (I don’t watch a lot of TV) and it felt as though a lot of her fans were in. The party scenes left me wondering what has happened to young people if that’s what they call a good party. As for Christina...are young women so lacking in perception these days? If that was me I would never have gone to bed and left Jean and Julie alone together. Do you think it made any difference to the play in your opinion about having an interracial couple as has been discussed previously?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 6:41:15 GMT
Now that I have seen this I think I have an idea of what Stenham was trying to do, but she hasn’t got there yet - and from the other examples of new writing I have seen at the RNT so far there is no one at that institution who is insightful enough to help its young writers understand the plays they are writing. This needs a few more drafts and Stenham should have been encouraged to do this because there is something very interesting here. The blender bit should have been a powerful moment instead of which people were laughing, probably because they weren’t emotionally invested. The lead actress is a star, I gather (I don’t watch a lot of TV) and it felt as though a lot of her fans were in. The party scenes left me wondering what has happened to young people if that’s what they call a good party. As for Christina...are young women so lacking in perception these days? If that was me I would never have gone to bed and left Jean and Julie alone together. Do you think it made any difference to the play in your opinion about having an interracial couple as has been discussed previously? Not really, but the potential is there. There is a suggestion that Julie fetishises, romanticises and lusts after the black body and that Jean despises her for it, but Stenham isn’t brave enough to go there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 12:34:56 GMT
As I was watching this I kept wondering who had done the choreography and wishing they’d got Ann Yee. I just checked the credits and guess what? Ann Yee was the choreographer. Not her best work, although some of Julie’s moves are really good. In some ways I wish they’d just had Julie dancing on her own and left the rest to our imaginations. Yee did the amazing choreography for Simon Stephens’ Birdland, which Andrew Scott starred in (best thing in that play) and taught Ralph Fiennes a brilliant dance for the film A Bigger Splash.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 5, 2018 15:38:34 GMT
Saw a headline (but article is hidden behind a paywall) that a fight broke out in the Circle last night at the end of Miss Julie, spoiling the ending....
Anyone see this? Or participate in it?
|
|
1,189 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 5, 2018 16:36:25 GMT
A performance of Julie at the National Theatre was disrupted in its final moments after two audience members became embroiled in a fight. Another theatregoer, Samantha Andrews, wrote on Twitter that she had seen a “punch up at the end of Julie” and added that the incident had “ruined the end of the show”. Olivia Baker, who was also in the audience, said those in the circle had not applauded the performance because they were distracted by the fight. She added that two people were “shoving each other” and everyone was watching “worried they would fall” rather than “cheering the stunning cast”. Rachelle Grubb @rach__elle 3 Jun Replying to @zestofalemon @nationaltheatre Wait what? A fight? Olivia Baker @zestofalemon Yes two people shoving each other! Everyone was watching them, worried one would fall, rather than cheering the stunning cast. 2:22 PM - Jun 3, 2018 See Olivia Baker's other Tweets Twitter Ads info and privacy Helen Jerome said the fight had been between “two middle-aged blokes”. helenjerome @helenjerome As if there wasn’t enough onstage drama 🔥 in #Julie @nationaltheatre - as the play ended tonight, a fight broke out in the circle between a couple of middle-aged blokes, held back by their respective crews 🥊 #poshscrap #leaveit #heaintworthit 9:14 PM - Jun 2, 2018 7 See helenjerome's other Tweets Twitter Ads info and privacy One audience member questioned whether any theatre staff had intervened. Samantha Andrews @samantha_SJA 2 Jun Some audience members just had a punch up at the end of #Julie at #thenationaltheatre didn’t know whether to watch the stage or the other antics! Gemma Payne @pleasureinpayne The noise was unnerving in that environment and not an usher insight 3:33 PM - Jun 3, 2018 See Gemma Payne's other Tweets Twitter Ads info and privacy The incident follows a fight at the Old Vic last year, in which an audience member claimed he was punched by another theatregoer for challenging him about using a mobile phone. The National Theatre was unavailable for comment at the time of publication.
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Jun 5, 2018 17:30:31 GMT
Finally! Some drama, tension, and dynamic action in the Lyttleton during a performance of Julie!
They should keep it in every show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 0:25:45 GMT
I don't think I've seen director Carrie Cracknell's work before, but on the strength of this I would rate her as slightly better than Norris.
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jun 6, 2018 10:38:42 GMT
Re. the fight, I see some wag on Twitter said it was Baz and Shenton finally sorting out their differences! Obviously not true as Shenton would never be sitting in the circle.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 6, 2018 16:16:00 GMT
Oh dear, so 'the look' was a bit too much this time..
|
|
1,220 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 6, 2018 21:46:42 GMT
Re. the fight, I see some wag on Twitter said it was Baz and Shenton finally sorting out their differences! Obviously not true as Shenton would never be sitting in the circle. It was actually Ryan, discussing the great ginormous central table that restricted his view of a shirtless Eric Kofi Abrefa, with the Production Designer.
|
|
1,220 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 6, 2018 22:43:21 GMT
Denying Strindberg his ‘slut shaming as art’ is long overdue. . . Saw this tonight, and this is the context and purpose of this production. Spoilers follow. . . Strindberg thought women were generally useless, and uppity women, who aspired to equality with men, worse than useless. Patrick Marber sneakily sidestepped the issue of Strindberg's misogyny by turning his version of Miss Julie into a rollicking sado-masochistic romp, of endless power-games. Natalie Dormer's whole wheelhouse is power games, so her version was a triumph, even better than the Donmar's, and better too than the film before that. But this production is not a sexy sado-masochistic romp at all. It is a sad story of a mentally ill, infantilised female, dealing with the legacy of her mother's suicide, and her attempt to escape her psychological nightmares by glomming onto her father's chauffeur. It is Strindberg's sexist scenario filtered through Polly Stenham's recontextualising compassion for the idle rich and Carrie Cracknell's contempt for the patriarchy. It is Dolls House Part 2 - one hundred years later, a tale of a messed up drug-abusing Tara Palmer Tompkinson type, impulsively and desperately looking for relief from her psychological torments in all the wrong places. This is entirely the story of Vanessa Kirby's Julie, with Kofi Abrefa's Jean merely along for the ride, literally. Abreja's Jean's race is only an issue in the sense that Julie ignorantly assumes African families to be helpless and covered "in flies," when realistically, he is sophisticated and wily, and it is her own mind that is infested with flies. That the real antagonist is Strindberg himself is evident from every rewritten reinterpretation of every line in the play. As Julie tells Jean: "Don't be so Victorian!" I found myself wishing for Strindberg to be an actual character in the play, lounging at the side of the stage, telling his "truths," Inheritance-style, so that the real drama of this piece could have human embodiment. If this had been done, this production could have reached 5 star heights. As it is, Vanessa Kirby constructs a relatable, immediate, sometimes funny, often tragic, always powerful portrait of a woman infantilised by her upbringing to be unable to take care of herself. I loved the way Kirby presented Julie as a witty presentable powerful figure, only to pull the rug out of every facet of Julie's personality brick by tragic brick. I've seen much of Kirby's stage work, from The Acid House to Streetcar, and her work here is up there with the best of it. Despite her supposedly unsympathetic character here, I was moved to tears. 4 stars from me. PS: My view of the dance floor stage at the back was restricted by the big table in the middle of the front kitchen stage. The view from the front £15 seats is therefore somewhat restricted, as well as involving cricking of the neck, due to a high stage. Go further back, if you can afford it.
|
|
3,088 posts
|
Post by david on Jun 6, 2018 23:07:17 GMT
Denying Strindberg his ‘slut shaming as art’ is long overdue. . . Saw this tonight, and this is the context and purpose of this production. Spoilers follow. . . Strindberg thought women were generally useless, and uppity women, who aspired to equality with men, worse than useless. Patrick Marber sneakily sidestepped the issue of Strindberg's misogyny by turning his version of Miss Julie into a rollicking sado-masochistic romp, of endless power-games. Natalie Dormer's whole wheelhouse is power games, so her version was a triumph, even better than the Donmar's, and better too than the film before that. But this production is not a sexy sado-masochistic romp at all. It is a sad story of a mentally ill, infantilised female, dealing with the legacy of her mother's suicide, and her attempt to escape her psychological nightmares by glomming onto her father's chauffeur. It is Strindberg's sexist scenario filtered through Polly Stenham's recontextualising compassion for the idle rich and Carrie Cracknell's contempt for the patriarchy. It is Dolls House Part 2 - one hundred years later, a tale of a messed up drug-abusing Tara Palmer Tompkinson type, impulsively and desperately looking for relief from her psychological torments in all the wrong places. This is entirely the story of Vanessa Kirby's Julie, with Kofi Abrefa's Jean merely along for the ride, literally. Abreja's Jean's race is only an issue in the sense that Julie ignorantly assumes African families to be helpless and covered "in flies," when realistically, he is sophisticated and wily, and it is her own mind that is infested with flies. That the real antagonist is Strindberg himself is evident from every rewritten reinterpretation of every line in the play. As Julie tells Jean: "Don't be so Victorian!" I found myself wishing for Strindberg to be an actual character in the play, lounging at the side of the stage, telling his "truths," Inheritance-style, so that the real drama of this piece could have human embodiment. If this had been done, this production could have reached 5 star heights. As it is, Vanessa Kirby constructs a relatable, immediate, sometimes funny, often tragic, always powerful portrait of a woman infantilised by her upbringing to be unable to take care of herself. I loved the way Kirby presented Julie as a witty presentable powerful figure, only to pull the rug out of every facet of Julie's personality brick by tragic brick. I've seen much of Kirby's stage work, from The Acid House to Streetcar, and her work here is up there with the best of it. Despite her supposedly unsympathetic character here, I was moved to tears. 4 stars from me. PS: My view of the dance floor stage at the back was restricted by the big table in the middle of the front kitchen stage. The view from the front £15 seats is therefore somewhat restricted, as well as involving cricking of the neck, due to a high stage. Go further back, if you can afford it. Having watched this last Saturday, I have to agree with you about Vanessa Kirby’s performance. It was interesting to see her deconstruct the character over the 80mins, though I just thought there was something lacking for me in the script as a whole that during the final scene it didn’t have that emotional impact as say People, Places and Things did. By the end of that final scene with the mum, it left me devastated as the lights came up, but with Julie I just couldn’t get that same emotional response. Overall, I think there is a good play in there with Julie somewhere, but in the final analysis, I just didn’t warm to it. On you point with the stalls seating I definitely agree with you that for this play, because of the staging, I had trouble seeing the back of the stage from Row D because of the placement of the very long dining table. As you say, it’s probably best to go further back or get seats in the circle section for a clear view of the stage.
|
|
1,870 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Jun 7, 2018 6:57:34 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome.
Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though...
|
|
|
Post by christypoe on Jun 7, 2018 7:25:28 GMT
Maybe it was some of the previous comments about this had not been leading me to expect much from this production, but I was rather impressed with this: yes the dance scenes were a bit of a shambles, there wasn't much of a real chemistry between the two leads and the sex scene was slightly embarrassing rather than anything 'erotic' (up a ladder?) but I liked the way this built to this climax, all three actors were excellent and at 80 minutes, it didn't overstay its welcome. Not one to go and see if you're fond of pet birds though... People need to realise that when they go to a preview they are paying to watch a rehearsal; the early comments on this thread are actually comments on an unfinished production. Judging by the last couple of posts from people who attended the latest previews, the rehearsals have been going well. I look forward to seeing this production when it actually opens.
|
|