Sunday, September 23, 2007
Ivo van Hove - Molière - The Misanthrope
New York Times: "In advance of Monday’s opening Mr. van Hove spoke with Erik Piepenburg about Molière’s funny side, what defines a “liquid society” and how he beat the boarding school blues. An extended audio slide show narrated by Mr. van Hove is at nytimes.com/theater."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What an interesting interview. I love hearing comedies disected and looked at in different lights. Satire is afterall, funny because there's that bit of underlying truth, something we're often too afraid or ashamed to really pull out of the piece and confront it. Moliere is so excellent because his absurd characters have so much truth to them. L'ecole des Femmes does the same thing; while you can enjoy it as a comedy, its ultimately a really sad plot, filled with insecure characters all struggling to find happiness within strict social confines, and there is a level of pity even for the plays most undeserving charater. Moliere's great at pointing out what's so absolutely wrong with society through amazing characters, only we're left laughing in the end.
I also think its interesting to hear someone talk about being so in tune with pleasing the audience, looking at theatre in terms of consumerism, but only to a certain extent. It seems like he's totally in touch with his artistic vision, unwilling to sacrifice, but its important to him because he wants to audience to enjoy it, or at least come away with something.
I agree with Corinna in saying that van Hove appears to be completely in touch with his artistic vision. I also find it very impressive that he was able to bring forth much more than the typical "stock character" image that Moliere stamps so often on his characters. There is something almost magical when you are able to find an old and historic play that has so much relation to the world we live in today. Ultimately, THAT seems to be an underlying strength of theatrical performance.
van Hove does a really good job justifying the way he makes traditional pieces "different," unlike a lot of theater that is different just to be different or different to offend. He can clearly justify what themes he sees in the play and how it connects with society today (such as the living apart together sentiment he is expressing in "The Misanthrope"). I also appreciate how he doesn't like feedback on his work in the "like it" v. "don't like it" form. It's not constructive or responsive. Those statements don't encourage artistic growth or improvement, they just reflect on indivudalist sentiment.
Post a Comment