| re: You are too kind | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:21 pm EST 01/12/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are too kind - ryhog 11:36 am EST 01/11/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm only dismissive of Rylance to the extent that I don't think he's giving us anything new in this play. Much like Bertie Carvel in "Ink", he's dipping into his bag of skills (or tricks) to cobble together a character where there is little on the page. It's the first time I've seen Rylance where nothing surprised me. I don't dismiss the play for it's unsatisfying ending, mainly because the lack of an ending stems from the lack of a meaningful beginning or middle. I do dismiss it for leaving (spoilers, if anyone is reading this) the king's death offstage, just as it leaves the attraction between Farinelli and the queen entirely offstage until the moment they suddenly kiss. There is no depth of character, and I think that we get the plot we do because it is baldly signposted. What most intrigued me, though, is your sense that it's unfair to call it a jukebox show, which to me is the least controversial thing I wrote :). The play essentially lurches from song to song (and I should note here that they added three songs for Broadway), and the entire dramatic engine of the play (to the extent that one exists) is about getting us to a new song. Even the rave reviews have centered around hearing the songs (or watching Rylance hear the songs), and all of the best stagecraft is built around the songs. Much like in a jukebox show, the characters are thin, and the historical information is told in a perfunctory and often tonally uneven style. For me, calling it a jukebox show is a descriptor rather than an insult, but then I don't mind a jukebox show, so long as they have a strong sense of action. Having rules around plays is always a bit of a dicey proposition, and people who work in literary often live in fear of not getting a play right - I almost certainly would have passed on "The Wolves". But there is a difference between people who are playing with form and those who are using an old form poorly. There's nothing in what van Kampen is doing that is experimental; she's attempting a linear, psychologically-based play, and her actual text fails to do much more than supply the basic sketch of the plot. She's working in a well-worn form, so we have a much easier time evaluating the success of her attempt. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: You are too kind - ryhog 11:36 am EST 01/11/18 |
| Next: | re: You are too kind - ryhog 11:15 pm EST 01/12/18 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.007507 seconds.