The Cherry Orchard

Radlett Arts Centre, Thursday 19th March
The Old Vic, Wednesday 17th June

This is a little harsh, I know, but given that I've seen two different productions of Checkov's 'The Cherry Orchard' within the space of a few months, I've decided to write a joint review. The first was an "AmDram" (at least I assume it was) travesty at our local arts centre. The second was a Hollywood gilded triumph on the South Bank. Contrasts abound.
Kevin Spacey is currently advertising American Airlines, claiming that it's hard to define what constitutes a "good" seat, but that you know it when you find it. In Radlett, we spent the second half in the dead centre of the single tiered-raked seating. These would be the most expensive seats in any theatre, and the "sweet spot" that most actors tend to deliver to. As regular followers will know by know, I am not a fan of this style of acting, believing that it's the role of a decent actor (and indeed producer) to forge an individual contract with each member of the audience. We are not an "audience", we are a collection of participants. But on paper, we had the best view in the house.
By contrast, regardless of where the "best" seats at the Old Vic are, the "worst" are almost certainly P5 and P6 in the Lylian Baylis Upper Circle. The Old Vic arches in not so much an Upper "Circle", but a rectangle. Consequently unless you are in the centre of the seating you will be facing the opposite side of the audience, not the stage. Indeed 5 and 6 are the first seats in the back row (closest to the stage), so you are sat perpindicular to the stage and so high up you can only make out about two thirds of it. As I reminded Faith, this was why the tickets are only £10 (and they are clearly advertised as restricted view), so I don't have a problem. Indeed my philosophy is that I'd rather watch 4 shows with a craning neck than 1 show in the plum centre. Yes, I can't see all the action, but I've paid 30 quid less than you and you. So, on paper, the worst view in the house.

But the "view" is misleading, because we don't come to theatre to watch. If we did, we'd buy it on DVD. Complaining about the "view" is like being at Goodison Park next to someone whingeing that you can't see the far corner spot. If you want a perfect view from the half way line, watch it on Sky. The reason we turn up is precisely to crane our necks, miss some of the action and be too close to others - to let people piss in our back trouser pocket and vomit up a three week old meat pie. In footie, in theatre.

Indeed the seats at the Vic were infinitely "better" than the ones in Radlett, because they were (i) cheaper; (ii) at a decent performance. In Radlett, I was thinking that an even better seat would be one at the bar. At the Old Vic, I wouldn't have been anywhere else. And this is the point. You don't need to see everything to experience it. You don't need to be plum centre to appreciate the quality of the performance. It's priggish to think otherwise.

Now to the performances. I think a simple rule of theatre should be that accents match costumes. There's nothing wrong with taking a play and putting it into a different context. One of the best productions of 'The Winter's Tale' was a Russian one, in Russian (but not in Russia). Mamillius looked like Alexei, which was haunting. But if a play is set in the set period, and actors dress accordingly, why are their accents allowed to stand as anachronisms? Not only this, but they put on fake accents that aren't of the period! As an example, both the servents in both productions spoke with Cockney accents. Yes, I get that they're staff, and yes, in the UK that accent signals such. But this isn't set in Victorian England. At least Hollywood dresses up language as much as the costumes. It's a pet hate of mine - Cockneys in theatre. Silly stuff.

It was engaging to see true theatre so soon after a local production. My biggest pet hate of theatre is actors who over act. Those who are almost shouting out I AM CURRENTLY DOING SOME ACTING. I SPEAK IN A WAY THAT SHOWS I AM ACTING. LOOK AT MY ACTING. I AM AN ACTOR. But even though the West End and South Bank routinely throws up some PROPER ACTING (as opposed to some being, and some engagement) it doesn't grate as much as provincial towns that seek to fit into a middle class and under-experienced audience's conception of what acting should look like. The Radlett performance contained no real depth of character, and whilst I assume Ranevskaya was supposed to be comic she appeared more like a hysterical drag artist. I kept expecting here to shreik "I'm a lady!", which I don't think Checkov had in mind when he wrote this as a comedy. It was an erratic performance with a small cast that went through the motions without really delivering something tremarkable.

By contrast Sam Mendes did a terrific job. As ever Simon Russell-Beale exuded stagemenship and compassion. I think he went overboard on the triumphalism of the final scene (surely the events give sufficient dramatic power). The cast was well balanced and Tom Stoppard didn't seem to innovate too much with the translation. That said, I'm not skilled enough to comment critically on the script or even the acting. All I can do is say whether the actors spoke to me. And they did

Comments

[Laura Briggs]

I saw this at the Brooklyn Academy of Music last December and am mainly commenting on this blog so I can say that. So there it is. I thought Tom Stoppard's translation dropped one or two serious clangers (I recall someone mentioning "freaks" or "freaking out" at one point. Wrong). I was concerned the movie actors' voices might not be up to such a big space or they'd be too understated for the stage but Ethan Hawke's voice in particular was impressive. I cannot comment on the Radlett performance. PS buy some decent tickets next time. No one puts Faith in a corner!