There were moments, I would say that the direction was not so much a misread of the play as it was a non read of the play. There were moments throughout which had the look and feel of nothing more than traffic direction. I never felt there was ever that much at stake. And I think you are SO right, it was the staging. Actually, quite a lot is at stake for the Arianda character( forget the name). But for the most part her journey never feels very compelling. I mean...poor thing has not gone to the Philharmonic in a year and a half. That makes us care?? I am being a little pedantic here but she seemed pretty shallow to me. That...I attribute to the writing. Also, this is 1920 Vienna? Well maybe in dress but not in dialogue. Stylistically the production ( and the writing) is just all over the place. They are in previews but it feels as if they are in about the third week of rehearsals. As "gone to lunch" as the direction feels, I am not convinced that there is really all that much of a play here.
I do think Nina Arianda Is an extraordinary actress. Just fascinating. Drifting off throughout the evening, I would return my focus to her and it brought me back to the world of the play. She could not keep me there for very long but there was always the sense of a deep, thorough,organic connection to the material. (Not unlike what Streep does for me). But even with that, you are so right...you could always see the work here. I can understand why this role would appeal to her. There is an interesting arc to her character. There is a lot " stuff" going on in her world. But, this whole enterprise, like a big block of cement, attaches itself and (though she fights mightily) drags her to the bottom of its turgid, murky, melodramatic sea.
This was a tough and ultimately negligible two hours and twenty.
|