How, I suppose, is it possible that I can hate a production but love the actors? Well, in the same way that On Ego refused to be split into minute details of actors, media, sound, lighting etc. so this production seems to have all its parts existing separately from one another. That is the reason that I felt able to tell the actors how bloody brilliant they are, while internally ranting in my head about the production.
Why the wait before writing this? Frankly, I didn't really want to be the person to attack another person's production. I bought my own ticket, I had no obligation to write anything and mainly I didn't trust my ability to criticise something without descending into meanness or hurting someone's feelings. Considering that my two best friends told me "I really think you'll dislike this production" I started to wonder whether I went in support of many good friends involved or out of a strange pleasure gained from sitting through something and not enjoying it. So after leaving the production and letting off steam about the bits and bobs I didn't think worked, I felt okay. Then I read Joe D'angelo's perfectly good review of Macbeth (http://www.nouse.co.uk/2015/03/07/review-macbeth/) and rage filled up again.
WHAT? You think THIS was theatre! But....didn't you....why?!
Still, nothing, no need to write why I didn't like it so much. Then I read some brilliant articles about the nature of criticism, particularly the two from two bloggers I have incredible respect for (Meg Vaughn* and Andrew Haydon**) and two people who aren't afraid of having an opinion. And so, in a very dull and long-winded way, I realised that it's okay to hate something. And it's also okay to tell other people you hated it. So, if you don't want to hear why I hated it, or you loved it and think I'm completely mental at the end of this and want to read something you agree with then again, read Joe's review, he's an excellent writer.
But for me, this was the type of theatre that makes me worried. Worried that we can just throw cigarettes and wine and whiskey in cool decanters mixed with fake blood and something is 'fresh' or 'new' or 'innovative'. Worried that a psychological play produced without any real arc or thought-through concept is okay, as long as there is some attempt at style.
From the moment I walked in and saw the three witches, bound and gagged, in orange jumpsuits, my heart sank. And then I read the note in the programme, telling me that this was a production examining the themes of terrorism and how Macbeth is actually a play about England really, not Scotland. And maybe I'm wrong but I don't really understand (even after seeing it and thinking about it) how on earth those things have anything to do with the play, Macbeth, as it stands.
*********
This is problem no.1
A play doesn't necessarily need to have a concept or a message. Many good plays are just entertaining. But if you outline your concept for the audience, then if that expectation is not met or justified then I will feel disappointed. I can imagine three responses to that: a) the audience should work for theatre, you shouldn't dumb down a production; b) it had those themes - look at the CCTV!; or c) you just missed it.
My response would be a) that is purely laziness. If you layer those things on top and I have to look for them, that's okay. When nothing exists in the production, it is just an idea that maybe could apply and forcing me to do the thinking for you is not the same. b) putting a set piece on stage, or a gimmick, is not the same as rigorously applying a theme or concept to a production and working towards it. Especially when moments could be applied to the theme and aren't. and c) sure, if I did, I apologise profusely for my reading of it.
Let's take the CCTV idea. Generally speaking, it was a good idea. It can totally be applied to Macbeth. The play is set in an unnamed anti-Terror organisation. The CCTV seems modern and we see live streams. But then it is barely referenced for the rest of the play. At some point, the screen changes from a series of CCTV feeds to a picture of the 'dagger' (Stanley knife), rather than actually incorporating this idea into the CCTV i.e. by having a faceless somebody holding the dagger on the screen. Then, later on, we see Lady Macbeth hanging on the screen but this time the picture needs to be changed via remote. Why has Macbeth, being able to see anywhere in his castle, never once used the screens to dispel his worries, paranoia or guilt? Or use the CCTV to watch one of the deaths which, by the last one, I feel nothing for?
For me, it seems odd that something so radical as terrorism can be the theme of such a faithful adaptation of a Shakespeare play. It tries to look cool but this is nothing new? How many productions manage to attach a style to a Shakespeare play but also manage to give their updating a concept that fits and improves the play as it is. I didn't want a more faithful production of Macbeth, I wanted a production that tried to be different. A play about terrorism or the English? That doesn't fit Macbeth. But it could fit. So rip the rulebook up. Would it not be better to put the Macduff and Malcolm scene at the beginning? Frame those two as the challengers, or the pretenders. The narrative was pretty much left by the roadside in the production concept so why not make your own narrative, rather than forcing one that doesn't fit? For a revamped Macbeth, it felt surprisingly similar to many others.
Problem no.2
This is more personal. More in relation to the play than in general to the type of theatre. In a play like Macbeth, arguably one of the best supernatural plays written, it perplexes me that the theme of the supernatural was taken out for this production. In an attempt to justify everything, things became too literal. Every metaphor in the text was represented in some way - from the dagger, to the spots of blood. It's not as if we, in modern times, cannot match up with supernatural elements - see Twilight, Misfits, Let The Right One In (film, tv, theatre). From the beginning when three prisoners, under threat of torture (if not already tortured), told the torturer/colleague something they wanted to hear, I felt off-balance. A worker as high a rank as Macbeth, right by the top of the organisation, would surely mistrust anything said in this context. This transcends suspension of disbelief at the very beginning of the play. Continuing into the next witches moment: it felt like there was no setting or understanding of what they were doing. Before they were prisoners but now they hang out together, dancing and rapping around a dead body. Suddenly, we are asked to trust that they aren't prisoners anymore. Or are they? What purpose does it serve either way in relation to the production?
Problem no.3
*********
This is problem no.1
A play doesn't necessarily need to have a concept or a message. Many good plays are just entertaining. But if you outline your concept for the audience, then if that expectation is not met or justified then I will feel disappointed. I can imagine three responses to that: a) the audience should work for theatre, you shouldn't dumb down a production; b) it had those themes - look at the CCTV!; or c) you just missed it.
My response would be a) that is purely laziness. If you layer those things on top and I have to look for them, that's okay. When nothing exists in the production, it is just an idea that maybe could apply and forcing me to do the thinking for you is not the same. b) putting a set piece on stage, or a gimmick, is not the same as rigorously applying a theme or concept to a production and working towards it. Especially when moments could be applied to the theme and aren't. and c) sure, if I did, I apologise profusely for my reading of it.
Let's take the CCTV idea. Generally speaking, it was a good idea. It can totally be applied to Macbeth. The play is set in an unnamed anti-Terror organisation. The CCTV seems modern and we see live streams. But then it is barely referenced for the rest of the play. At some point, the screen changes from a series of CCTV feeds to a picture of the 'dagger' (Stanley knife), rather than actually incorporating this idea into the CCTV i.e. by having a faceless somebody holding the dagger on the screen. Then, later on, we see Lady Macbeth hanging on the screen but this time the picture needs to be changed via remote. Why has Macbeth, being able to see anywhere in his castle, never once used the screens to dispel his worries, paranoia or guilt? Or use the CCTV to watch one of the deaths which, by the last one, I feel nothing for?
For me, it seems odd that something so radical as terrorism can be the theme of such a faithful adaptation of a Shakespeare play. It tries to look cool but this is nothing new? How many productions manage to attach a style to a Shakespeare play but also manage to give their updating a concept that fits and improves the play as it is. I didn't want a more faithful production of Macbeth, I wanted a production that tried to be different. A play about terrorism or the English? That doesn't fit Macbeth. But it could fit. So rip the rulebook up. Would it not be better to put the Macduff and Malcolm scene at the beginning? Frame those two as the challengers, or the pretenders. The narrative was pretty much left by the roadside in the production concept so why not make your own narrative, rather than forcing one that doesn't fit? For a revamped Macbeth, it felt surprisingly similar to many others.
Problem no.2
This is more personal. More in relation to the play than in general to the type of theatre. In a play like Macbeth, arguably one of the best supernatural plays written, it perplexes me that the theme of the supernatural was taken out for this production. In an attempt to justify everything, things became too literal. Every metaphor in the text was represented in some way - from the dagger, to the spots of blood. It's not as if we, in modern times, cannot match up with supernatural elements - see Twilight, Misfits, Let The Right One In (film, tv, theatre). From the beginning when three prisoners, under threat of torture (if not already tortured), told the torturer/colleague something they wanted to hear, I felt off-balance. A worker as high a rank as Macbeth, right by the top of the organisation, would surely mistrust anything said in this context. This transcends suspension of disbelief at the very beginning of the play. Continuing into the next witches moment: it felt like there was no setting or understanding of what they were doing. Before they were prisoners but now they hang out together, dancing and rapping around a dead body. Suddenly, we are asked to trust that they aren't prisoners anymore. Or are they? What purpose does it serve either way in relation to the production?
Problem no.3
In a return to what we began with: the lack of unity in the production. There were some lovely things in the production that weren't pushed or used as well as they might. The sink in the corner for example: a great part of the set, something for the actors to play off and use and maybe express some internal thought or feeling they might not have otherwise. Except that it was at the side, facing the wall. So I didn't see any of the things the actors were doing. In the same way, a perfectly good scene between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth was completely lost amidst the overpowering sound of Ben Howard. Narrative and character lost for the sake of style. Likewise, the live feed was only addressed once (by Banquo): was the camera hidden? Even though the computer with that stream was on the entire time and everyone in the room could see it?
The characters didn't seem to use the set to its fullest extent - an IV drip that wasn't, aside from the Porter briefly, referenced to or used in the entire play. The blocks around the side of stage, again used only once by Macduff near the end of the play, and otherwise just to keep extraneous props. Much the same, the sound and lighting did nothing to enhance the scenes, sometimes taking away from them directly - e.g. Perfect Day song after Lady Macduff's death. It's not that the sound and lighting are bad - often the sound in transitions and scene lighting were brilliant - but they struggled to add anything more.
*******
It seems odd to try and summarise this, in the way you might a review, but I suppose what I took from Macbeth was that I clearly do have a type of theatre I prefer, much as I wish that wasn't the case. And that actually I don't take pleasure from seeing things I don't like. So I guess the type of theatre that I like is intelligent, interrogates a text and creates a consistent concept. Give me a production that is about something, over a production that just tries to force a style as best it can on top of a play. Macbeth didn't do any of this for me, trying too hard to be a cross between Peaky Blinders and Quentin Tarantino without the money or consistency that those things have.
I have no doubt that, if this is the style of the production team, that future productions will be tightened up - a first-time director will invariably have learnt a lot doing the production and to go for that type of style in a Shakespeare is a bold move. But for me, this production was surface-level aesthetics and even then I saw cracks in the decisions that made me question whether this production knew the style it was aiming for to begin with.
Notes
* Meg Vaughn - incredible and innovative blog at http://synonymsforchurlish.tumblr.com/
** Andrew Haydon - beautiful writer with a wonderful depth of knowledge about theatre at http://postcardsgods.blogspot.co.uk/
The characters didn't seem to use the set to its fullest extent - an IV drip that wasn't, aside from the Porter briefly, referenced to or used in the entire play. The blocks around the side of stage, again used only once by Macduff near the end of the play, and otherwise just to keep extraneous props. Much the same, the sound and lighting did nothing to enhance the scenes, sometimes taking away from them directly - e.g. Perfect Day song after Lady Macduff's death. It's not that the sound and lighting are bad - often the sound in transitions and scene lighting were brilliant - but they struggled to add anything more.
*******
It seems odd to try and summarise this, in the way you might a review, but I suppose what I took from Macbeth was that I clearly do have a type of theatre I prefer, much as I wish that wasn't the case. And that actually I don't take pleasure from seeing things I don't like. So I guess the type of theatre that I like is intelligent, interrogates a text and creates a consistent concept. Give me a production that is about something, over a production that just tries to force a style as best it can on top of a play. Macbeth didn't do any of this for me, trying too hard to be a cross between Peaky Blinders and Quentin Tarantino without the money or consistency that those things have.
I have no doubt that, if this is the style of the production team, that future productions will be tightened up - a first-time director will invariably have learnt a lot doing the production and to go for that type of style in a Shakespeare is a bold move. But for me, this production was surface-level aesthetics and even then I saw cracks in the decisions that made me question whether this production knew the style it was aiming for to begin with.
Notes
* Meg Vaughn - incredible and innovative blog at http://synonymsforchurlish.tumblr.com/
** Andrew Haydon - beautiful writer with a wonderful depth of knowledge about theatre at http://postcardsgods.blogspot.co.uk/
No comments:
Post a Comment