NYTimes.com: For much of the new Young Vic production of “Three Sisters,” the second of two productions from major Australian directors to open in London in a single week, it felt like I was watching an overweening concept as opposed to Chekhov’s actual play. That’s at least until the set calms down (or, in this case, is actually dismantled) and the actors are given a chance to breathe.
2 comments:
I don't think I've ever read a NYTimes review in which the author spent so much time talking about the set. In this case it is perhaps not so good of a thing, but it does speak volumes about where his attention was drawn (minus his speil about the fourth act). The fact that the set is so grandiose, distracting, and perhaps somewhat incongruous with the pace of the play that it distracts even the actors is truly a baffling concept. I almost want to see the play just to see how powerful of a set it must be in order to command so much attention and steal the show from what should be a very intensive, passionate text. Then again, this sort of Chekhov/Beckett hybrid would likely make me almost too inquisitive and further distract me from the actual 'meat' of the show.
While I agree that the author of the article's attention to the set is disconcerting, I do to necessarily agree that the set is designed in a way which is overly grandiose because it is more than just a design which makes a set so apparent. A lack of development or straying from believable characters can create a stage where people are not looking and not looking at the actors. And the only other thing I can guarantee will be on stage aside from the actors is the set. The article's author even notes the poor performances by a number of veteran performers. If I was looking past performers for a couple of hours at a single set, the set would seem pretty intense to me, too.
Post a Comment