Posted by: archive
« on: August 20, 2007, 10:38:31 PM »
Re: London production Jess refered to... if it was the Guildhall production you were talking about, I'd have to take issue with the verdict "very effective". Certainly the production team behind it can be applauded for composing an original score for the piece, and there were some good moments but (and I don't want to be harsh) it still felt very much like a student production. Without being specific (unless requested), some of the cast simply weren't up to it, and the music, though an interesting idea, seemed to have given the cast the license to ignore the MUSICALITY OF THE WORDS, which is central to the play. Apart from the various sections that Kane hands performers on a plate, there was a definite sense of the performers just getting up and saying their lines in the correct order, full stop. Having A deliver his speech amongst the audience was an interesting idea, but it didn't seem to have any particular purpose, and the 'grouping together' at the end was a bit of an awkward "lets get everyone around but for no particular reason other than they all mention light". It was a passable production as a whole, but I was more than slightly riled by the number of audience members (mainly from Guildhall) who came out nodding their heads in polite approval, and basically congratulating themselves on seeing some Kane that was (and I quote) "quite affecting". As someone working on a production of Crave at the moment, I'm probably over-reacting having lived and breathed the play for the last few months, but I think Crave has SO much more potential. It seems to be the very 'in' Kane play to do at the moment because directors are given a free reign to do what they want with it - and there's nothing wrong with that - but for anyone who has a relatively good understanding of the work, to call the Guidhall Crave "very effective" worries me slightly. I wouldn't have minded but they went to extent of publisicing themselves at the Royal Court's Kane talk!!! I'll cool it now... sorry! Any other views of this production welcome of course, I might be completely wrong, but I'm up for arguing about it :-)
Archive 15-6-2002