Soho Theatre
EXCERPT: "there is something quite ground breaking about not providing those answers, not progressing things along, just going round and round on a bit of a treadmill. It's especially revolutionary when, despite the fact this shouldn't work dramatically, it really does. I wonder, though, whether as a straight play it might suffer from that structure - perhaps it can only get away with it because the dialogue is improvised and there's something electric and energising about that."
Thoughts
Exterminating Angel was just great. Very atmospheric, with real oppressive tension at nicely spaced out intervals, it felt well put together and structured. There was a lot of comedy - and I'm sure there would have been much more had there been a bigger audience. Even moments of crucifying truthfulness never felt so uncomfortable they crossed into that unenjoyable boundary. Improvised conversation worked superbly well and felt very realistic, making me wonder why more companies don't use it? I can well understand why audiences have got so involved in the past - for example, audience members have been known to pick up the ringing phone, or supply the correct answer to the actors' questions about cheese. We felt wholly involved with the proceedings, making for a really quite draining and hard hitting experience. The relationships between the characters were very credible and nuanced. I particularly loved the confessional moments, which - remarkably - didn't feel forced at all.
My issues are with the piece's overarching realism: there's no explanation given for why they don't want to go outside, and I'm not sure enough attention, introduction or context is given to displays of fear. I also really didn't like the silences - they felt very forced in a way the rest never did. They didn't need to stay silent for that long, or if they did decide they needed to do so, they could maybe have attempted but aborted conversations. The fits / fainting / outburst are good, though again I think we maybe need more answers to them. I needed more answers: to know what's outside, who was on the phone, and I didn't get why Christina pushed her husband to go outside when she was scared to herself. But then there is something quite ground breaking about not providing those answers, not progressing things along, just going round and round on a bit of a treadmill. It's especially revolutionary when, despite the fact this shouldn't work dramatically, it really does. I wonder, though, whether as a straight play it might suffer from that structure - perhaps it can only get away with it because the dialogue is improvised and there's something electric and energising about that.
My issues are with the piece's overarching realism: there's no explanation given for why they don't want to go outside, and I'm not sure enough attention, introduction or context is given to displays of fear. I also really didn't like the silences - they felt very forced in a way the rest never did. They didn't need to stay silent for that long, or if they did decide they needed to do so, they could maybe have attempted but aborted conversations. The fits / fainting / outburst are good, though again I think we maybe need more answers to them. I needed more answers: to know what's outside, who was on the phone, and I didn't get why Christina pushed her husband to go outside when she was scared to herself. But then there is something quite ground breaking about not providing those answers, not progressing things along, just going round and round on a bit of a treadmill. It's especially revolutionary when, despite the fact this shouldn't work dramatically, it really does. I wonder, though, whether as a straight play it might suffer from that structure - perhaps it can only get away with it because the dialogue is improvised and there's something electric and energising about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment