Stoppard, Stoppard and Stoppard...
Nov. 11th, 2002 02:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaYesterday I went to see "Coast of Utopia" at the Royal National Theatre.
Three three-hour plays in the space of one day. With very short breaks between them. Fortunately, the plays are rather good.
Revolution, politics, philosophy, romance.
Wonderful costumes, good acting and a fantastically clever set.
And it's very, very funny.
After a trip to the RSC a few years ago, I said that I would no longer consider a Shakespeare play complete if it did not feature a pantomime camel. From now on, I refuse to be inerested in any drama about Russian history that does not include a six foot tall cigar-smoking ginger cat.
Lex suggested around a month ago that we go and see this trilogy. I knew nothing about it, but figured hey, Tom Stoppard's usually pretty funny, and it sounds like an interesting thing to do. I think it's safe to say that of the 10 of us who took him up on the suggestion, at least half were having moderately serious doubts by the time we met up. Did we really want to spend nine hours in the theatre ?
After the first play, these doubts were gone - or at least commuted to wondering how we could physically cope with the problems of sitting for the rest of the day in tip-up minimal-legroom theatre seats without sustaining permanent injury.
Each play picks up from the previous one, and tells the story of a bunch of friends, mostly of the Russian nobility, who dabble in politics, wade into revolution, and go way over their heads into philosophy. I didn't realise at first, but all the central characters are real historical figures, and from the program it seems that the plays follow the history quite closely.
The three plays are alledgedly self-contained, but I don't think I'd recommend seeing the second or third in isolation. The first one, "Voyage", would probably work by itself; I think it's also the lightest of the three. Although events in it are sometimes tragic, they aren't played out in such wrenching emotional detail as some of the scenes in the later two plays.
The main thing that struck me about all three of the plays, was just how real the people and situations seemed. I often find it difficult to forget that I'm watching "characters" in a play, but this seemed to be full of surprisingly human touches, both in the characters and the scenes they find themselves in. In particular, the guy who plays Vissarion Belinsky, a literary critic with big ideas, is absolutely amazing. Alexander Herzen, who is more or less the central figure in the later two plays, remains an immenesely likeable character; surprisingly so, given some of his actions.
If you're not fond of philosophy or political theory, it might be wise stay away. The main characters spend a lot of time discussing philosophy, and the varying theories of rival schools of thought. I know nowt about philosophical thought, though, and I was never bored by it - it stays interesting (and funny) all the time.
And the set... was amazing. A circular, revolving stage, which must have made technical rehearsals an absolute nightmare. The stage hands enter from one door, carrying a sofa, and step onto the revolving floor. They walk a little way, set down the sofa, and step off again in time to exit neatly through another door. And the sofa ends up in the right place when the stage stops revolving. This is while other people are moving other bits of set around, and the actors are also continuing a different scene on a different part of the stage.
The "backdrops" were projected onto curved screens, sometimes ordinary static backdrops, and sometimes films to convey movement of some kind. This is the first time I've seen projected back drops, and again I was really very impressed.
Oh, and what I thought was a clever solution to the perennial problem of how to manage scene-changes slickly when there are no curtains to hide the stage. Particularly since one part of the stage was often being set up while the action continued on another section. All the stage hands were dressed as servants in keeping with the period and place. So, when at the rural family home in Russia, the props were shifted by serfs dressed in rags. Of course, the nobility complelely ignores the serfs scuttling about, only pausing to cuff them if they get in the way, and the scenery is changed without the audience really noticing.
Advice for anyone thinking of seeing the trilogy:
However, I do consider this a sufficiently high dose of culture that I'm not required to interact with anything remotely highbrow for at least six months. If anyone catches me reading trashy novels, I shall brandish my nine hours of Stoppard vigorously. And that will show 'em.
Three three-hour plays in the space of one day. With very short breaks between them. Fortunately, the plays are rather good.
Revolution, politics, philosophy, romance.
Wonderful costumes, good acting and a fantastically clever set.
And it's very, very funny.
After a trip to the RSC a few years ago, I said that I would no longer consider a Shakespeare play complete if it did not feature a pantomime camel. From now on, I refuse to be inerested in any drama about Russian history that does not include a six foot tall cigar-smoking ginger cat.
Lex suggested around a month ago that we go and see this trilogy. I knew nothing about it, but figured hey, Tom Stoppard's usually pretty funny, and it sounds like an interesting thing to do. I think it's safe to say that of the 10 of us who took him up on the suggestion, at least half were having moderately serious doubts by the time we met up. Did we really want to spend nine hours in the theatre ?
After the first play, these doubts were gone - or at least commuted to wondering how we could physically cope with the problems of sitting for the rest of the day in tip-up minimal-legroom theatre seats without sustaining permanent injury.
Each play picks up from the previous one, and tells the story of a bunch of friends, mostly of the Russian nobility, who dabble in politics, wade into revolution, and go way over their heads into philosophy. I didn't realise at first, but all the central characters are real historical figures, and from the program it seems that the plays follow the history quite closely.
The three plays are alledgedly self-contained, but I don't think I'd recommend seeing the second or third in isolation. The first one, "Voyage", would probably work by itself; I think it's also the lightest of the three. Although events in it are sometimes tragic, they aren't played out in such wrenching emotional detail as some of the scenes in the later two plays.
The main thing that struck me about all three of the plays, was just how real the people and situations seemed. I often find it difficult to forget that I'm watching "characters" in a play, but this seemed to be full of surprisingly human touches, both in the characters and the scenes they find themselves in. In particular, the guy who plays Vissarion Belinsky, a literary critic with big ideas, is absolutely amazing. Alexander Herzen, who is more or less the central figure in the later two plays, remains an immenesely likeable character; surprisingly so, given some of his actions.
If you're not fond of philosophy or political theory, it might be wise stay away. The main characters spend a lot of time discussing philosophy, and the varying theories of rival schools of thought. I know nowt about philosophical thought, though, and I was never bored by it - it stays interesting (and funny) all the time.
And the set... was amazing. A circular, revolving stage, which must have made technical rehearsals an absolute nightmare. The stage hands enter from one door, carrying a sofa, and step onto the revolving floor. They walk a little way, set down the sofa, and step off again in time to exit neatly through another door. And the sofa ends up in the right place when the stage stops revolving. This is while other people are moving other bits of set around, and the actors are also continuing a different scene on a different part of the stage.
The "backdrops" were projected onto curved screens, sometimes ordinary static backdrops, and sometimes films to convey movement of some kind. This is the first time I've seen projected back drops, and again I was really very impressed.
Oh, and what I thought was a clever solution to the perennial problem of how to manage scene-changes slickly when there are no curtains to hide the stage. Particularly since one part of the stage was often being set up while the action continued on another section. All the stage hands were dressed as servants in keeping with the period and place. So, when at the rural family home in Russia, the props were shifted by serfs dressed in rags. Of course, the nobility complelely ignores the serfs scuttling about, only pausing to cuff them if they get in the way, and the scenery is changed without the audience really noticing.
Advice for anyone thinking of seeing the trilogy:
- Read up a bit on the basic historical outline if you don't know it. (I had no idea there was a French revolution in 1848...). Not essential, but I think I'd have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been trying to piece together the history at the same time.
- If you're going for the three-in-a-day marathon, go to Pizza Express (between the theatre and Waterloo station) for dinner. We had a table booked for 2:10, and they provided pizza and wine for 11 of us sufficiently speedily that we were out again by 2.40.
- If attempting to discuss it with people, get used to describing characters as "the one who...". We all found the Russian names incredibly hard to remember.
- Don't wear rubber-soled shoes. Fluffy carpet, metal bannisters. Ouch :(
However, I do consider this a sufficiently high dose of culture that I'm not required to interact with anything remotely highbrow for at least six months. If anyone catches me reading trashy novels, I shall brandish my nine hours of Stoppard vigorously. And that will show 'em.
Re: Oops, sorry.
Date: 2002-11-12 12:51 am (UTC)That's rather careless of you. Well, you seem to know now, so I'm sure no harm has been done ;-)
And you are probably the one person who *didn't* need to call me Jemima :)
I know, but I couldn't resist. Although people have actually asked me which Liz I've meant before. Silly people.