27 November 2005
Went to the new Britten Midsummer Night's Dream at the ROH yesterday. One of the women at work, who has a very rich husband and so doesn't really have to work for a living, gave away her tickets because she couldn't make it.
The show is in all the Critic's Choice lists in all the quality papers but I didn't think it was all that. Let's face it - Britten isn't all that hummable. The production was sort of modernist in a sort of 50s sort of way but mostly looked like they didn't have a huge budget for costumes. There was a lot of neon lighting which is where the budget seems to have gone.
Good things about it (well, 'thing' about it):
Puck - he was some kind of circus performer who was very good at climbing ropes. I don't know this opera at all - but it seems weird to me that one of the main characters doesn't sing - but just speaks all his lines. I wonder if they sacrificed the singing for the visual interest. Probably a good thing as they really needed the visual interest. He was excellent.
The mechanicals weren't bad. But the mechanicals are really only funny the first time you see the play. After that it's all pretty contrived. Though would be good to see Johnny Vegas in the new BBC TV production playing Bottom.
Okay, the projections on the back screen weren't bad either.
Bad things about it:
Boy choir - sheesh. They could sing okay, but the acting and moving was atrocious. Choreography was really clunky and they looked like they thought it was. And the wings they had to put on halfway through for no reason that I can fathom must have filled them with joy when they saw them for the first time. Not.
Direction - all pretty contrived. Few nice moments but generally the choreography looked really forced and there doesn't seem to have been any direction for the acting. Just a few visual gags.
Music - sorry, Britten, but too avant garde for me. All my work companions left before the end. One left after 1st act because it was above her head. Two left after the 2nd act - firstly, because they thought it was over but when I pointed out that there was another third to go, they couldn't bear the thought of sitting through another hour. Plus, nobody knew what was going on till I explained it in the first interval. Even though the Dream is not the hardest of Shakespeare's plays to understand, if it's being sung through in a early 20th century modernist fashion and you don't know the story, it's almost entirely incomprehensible. Plus, the opera skips most of the first act, so you don't know who any of the characters are, or that Hermia and Helena are best friends, or who is in love with who, or who the Duke of Athens and Hippolyta are. Bizarre.
Altogether, this critic says - ill-conceived.
PS Just read a review which says that Puck is a spoken part. Ha, ha! I was wrong and am duly reprehended.
The show is in all the Critic's Choice lists in all the quality papers but I didn't think it was all that. Let's face it - Britten isn't all that hummable. The production was sort of modernist in a sort of 50s sort of way but mostly looked like they didn't have a huge budget for costumes. There was a lot of neon lighting which is where the budget seems to have gone.
Good things about it (well, 'thing' about it):
Puck - he was some kind of circus performer who was very good at climbing ropes. I don't know this opera at all - but it seems weird to me that one of the main characters doesn't sing - but just speaks all his lines. I wonder if they sacrificed the singing for the visual interest. Probably a good thing as they really needed the visual interest. He was excellent.
The mechanicals weren't bad. But the mechanicals are really only funny the first time you see the play. After that it's all pretty contrived. Though would be good to see Johnny Vegas in the new BBC TV production playing Bottom.
Okay, the projections on the back screen weren't bad either.
Bad things about it:
Boy choir - sheesh. They could sing okay, but the acting and moving was atrocious. Choreography was really clunky and they looked like they thought it was. And the wings they had to put on halfway through for no reason that I can fathom must have filled them with joy when they saw them for the first time. Not.
Direction - all pretty contrived. Few nice moments but generally the choreography looked really forced and there doesn't seem to have been any direction for the acting. Just a few visual gags.
Music - sorry, Britten, but too avant garde for me. All my work companions left before the end. One left after 1st act because it was above her head. Two left after the 2nd act - firstly, because they thought it was over but when I pointed out that there was another third to go, they couldn't bear the thought of sitting through another hour. Plus, nobody knew what was going on till I explained it in the first interval. Even though the Dream is not the hardest of Shakespeare's plays to understand, if it's being sung through in a early 20th century modernist fashion and you don't know the story, it's almost entirely incomprehensible. Plus, the opera skips most of the first act, so you don't know who any of the characters are, or that Hermia and Helena are best friends, or who is in love with who, or who the Duke of Athens and Hippolyta are. Bizarre.
Altogether, this critic says - ill-conceived.
PS Just read a review which says that Puck is a spoken part. Ha, ha! I was wrong and am duly reprehended.
Labels: theatre
# posted by gilamonster : 07:45
