A Doll's House
Mon, 19 June 2000, 11:40 amLeah Maher8 posts in thread
A Doll's House
Mon, 19 June 2000, 11:40 amIt is always dangerous to go and see one of your favourite texts performed, escpecially for the first time. You walk in with a set idea in your head of what it should look like and the production almost never conforms to your opinion of the text. This reveiw should probably be read with that in mind.
I went to see GRADs' A Doll's House on Saturday night and I loved it. The production was slick and assured and despite the rather static nature of the text, the pace seldom waned. When it did I suspect it was the fault of the actors losing their focus for a second, in an extremely intense text and having to regain their positions on stage. The acting, particularly from the two lead was superb and the part of Thomas could well have been written for Gary T Saunders. (I hope the ladies who were waiting for you in the carpark afterwards did not hurt you too much Gary.)
But I wouldn't be me without some gripes. Most of them completely out of the control of the actors or the director. The main one was the staging. The Dolphin stage is lovely and big but I felt it really dwarfed the action, particularly in view of the rather minimalist set. It gave the impression of a house of mansion proportions, which this house was certainly not supposed to be. It also made it impossible to convey the claustrophobic feel I felt should have begun to pervade the end of the first half. The actor who played Nora did her best to fill up the space but I felt it was a feat beyond even her considerable talents.
My second gripe was that there appeared to be a few different acting styles on stage at the same time. This detracted from the script and put at least one actor in danger of looking OTT and another in danger of disappearing all together. Also I felt that Dr Rank just did not look sick. I felt a stick may have been in order in veiw of his spinal condition and increasing difficulty in walking might have lead nicely into his exit.
I would like to make special mention of the pivitol Dean Schulz. His character was instrumental to the play and was underplayed beautifully. He really needed to be a man who was not evil, not a villian, just a man desperate and out of options. It would have been so easy to overplay it, but Dean had perfect balance.
My last comment is on the change of the period of the play, bringing it up to Post WWII. I didn't think it was possible to make an Ibsen text most poingant but I think the period change did it. A writer can truely be called great if his or her script still has resonance over 100 years after it is written, but A Dolls House can still be called a social comment. The change of period did nothing to detract from the revolutionary nature of the lead charcter and her actions, but it did manage to make the play "touchable". Women floating around in big dresses are easy to dismiss just as characters, but I'm sure many of us saw our mothers or our grandmothers up there on the stage and identified almost to the point of pain with Noras plight.
The bottom line is (after that long and exhausting diatribe), it is very rare that you walk out of a play determined to see everything else you can just in case one of them may top the experience you've just had. To quote from the person I went to see "A Doll's House" with (who jokingly dismissed it as feminist twaddle as soon as the curtain went down, at least I think he was joking), "Well, that was a reason to go see ameteur theatre."
Well done again Grant and crew.
I went to see GRADs' A Doll's House on Saturday night and I loved it. The production was slick and assured and despite the rather static nature of the text, the pace seldom waned. When it did I suspect it was the fault of the actors losing their focus for a second, in an extremely intense text and having to regain their positions on stage. The acting, particularly from the two lead was superb and the part of Thomas could well have been written for Gary T Saunders. (I hope the ladies who were waiting for you in the carpark afterwards did not hurt you too much Gary.)
But I wouldn't be me without some gripes. Most of them completely out of the control of the actors or the director. The main one was the staging. The Dolphin stage is lovely and big but I felt it really dwarfed the action, particularly in view of the rather minimalist set. It gave the impression of a house of mansion proportions, which this house was certainly not supposed to be. It also made it impossible to convey the claustrophobic feel I felt should have begun to pervade the end of the first half. The actor who played Nora did her best to fill up the space but I felt it was a feat beyond even her considerable talents.
My second gripe was that there appeared to be a few different acting styles on stage at the same time. This detracted from the script and put at least one actor in danger of looking OTT and another in danger of disappearing all together. Also I felt that Dr Rank just did not look sick. I felt a stick may have been in order in veiw of his spinal condition and increasing difficulty in walking might have lead nicely into his exit.
I would like to make special mention of the pivitol Dean Schulz. His character was instrumental to the play and was underplayed beautifully. He really needed to be a man who was not evil, not a villian, just a man desperate and out of options. It would have been so easy to overplay it, but Dean had perfect balance.
My last comment is on the change of the period of the play, bringing it up to Post WWII. I didn't think it was possible to make an Ibsen text most poingant but I think the period change did it. A writer can truely be called great if his or her script still has resonance over 100 years after it is written, but A Dolls House can still be called a social comment. The change of period did nothing to detract from the revolutionary nature of the lead charcter and her actions, but it did manage to make the play "touchable". Women floating around in big dresses are easy to dismiss just as characters, but I'm sure many of us saw our mothers or our grandmothers up there on the stage and identified almost to the point of pain with Noras plight.
The bottom line is (after that long and exhausting diatribe), it is very rare that you walk out of a play determined to see everything else you can just in case one of them may top the experience you've just had. To quote from the person I went to see "A Doll's House" with (who jokingly dismissed it as feminist twaddle as soon as the curtain went down, at least I think he was joking), "Well, that was a reason to go see ameteur theatre."
Well done again Grant and crew.
RE: A Doll's House
Tue, 20 June 2000, 12:11 amHi Leah
Thanks for the kind and constructive comments.
I'm with you totally on the set. Before i started work on this show, i read a couple of reviews of a Canadian production done in a minimalist setting that echoed exactly your own comments - and, if i'm totally honest, my own concerns. I remember similar issues impinging on the Hole's stylish production performed in the open space of the Subiaco Theatre Centre. Like the Dolphin, I didn't feel the open, white setting of the Hole's production significantly detracted from the play. That said, i do feel the actors more than make up for any potential misgivings by conquering the space gloriously in the all important third act.
Some people seek to take issue with any production that removes a play from the setting or period it was originally intended for in much the same way that people cling to their favourite recording of songs and are bitterly disappointed when they hear it performed live. In most, but not all, cases the attitude is based on some naive platonic notion that live performance is about recreating the same mythical ideal event over and over with complete authenticity.
I don't subscribe to this point of view. Ibsen wrote in a memorandum about A Doll's House that it was to be about "women today". Someone might argue that Ibsen's "today" was 1879 and that we should set the play in that period. I believe this misses the point entirely. Ibsen wanted the play to speak about and to women and society in a contemporary fashion. He was not writing about a Nora that was a distant, remote-by-a-century, woman; but a living, breathing individual to whom his audience would immediately relate. Just as you have suggested, Leah.
I was delighted (or was i saddened?) to hear comments from some audience members after the show, that in Nora's complaint they heard the voices of their own mothers and grandmothers. But perhaps most exciting of all was to hear an audience stirred to the point of openly jeering characters on a stage. How extraordinary that a 120 year old play can still move an audience in that manner!
If you haven't seen it, get along quickly!
Cheers
Grant
Thanks for the kind and constructive comments.
I'm with you totally on the set. Before i started work on this show, i read a couple of reviews of a Canadian production done in a minimalist setting that echoed exactly your own comments - and, if i'm totally honest, my own concerns. I remember similar issues impinging on the Hole's stylish production performed in the open space of the Subiaco Theatre Centre. Like the Dolphin, I didn't feel the open, white setting of the Hole's production significantly detracted from the play. That said, i do feel the actors more than make up for any potential misgivings by conquering the space gloriously in the all important third act.
Some people seek to take issue with any production that removes a play from the setting or period it was originally intended for in much the same way that people cling to their favourite recording of songs and are bitterly disappointed when they hear it performed live. In most, but not all, cases the attitude is based on some naive platonic notion that live performance is about recreating the same mythical ideal event over and over with complete authenticity.
I don't subscribe to this point of view. Ibsen wrote in a memorandum about A Doll's House that it was to be about "women today". Someone might argue that Ibsen's "today" was 1879 and that we should set the play in that period. I believe this misses the point entirely. Ibsen wanted the play to speak about and to women and society in a contemporary fashion. He was not writing about a Nora that was a distant, remote-by-a-century, woman; but a living, breathing individual to whom his audience would immediately relate. Just as you have suggested, Leah.
I was delighted (or was i saddened?) to hear comments from some audience members after the show, that in Nora's complaint they heard the voices of their own mothers and grandmothers. But perhaps most exciting of all was to hear an audience stirred to the point of openly jeering characters on a stage. How extraordinary that a 120 year old play can still move an audience in that manner!
If you haven't seen it, get along quickly!
Cheers
Grant
- ···
- ···