![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The last time I saw M for M was in 2010, by a bunch of UMass Lowell students. Probably that was also the first time I saw it, although I had read an essay by Juliet Stevenson about portraying Isabella.
I didn't like it much at the time, although I can't see that it is any more problematic than the rest of Shakespeare's plays. Some people get paired off as they would hope, and some (especially women) are required to be be married to provide a "happy" ending, even though one can tell only misery will follow. Still, I was intrigued at the idea of a production in Russian playing briefly at the Cutler Majestic, wondering whether I could understand any of it (not necessary - it was in English on a screen above the action), so I went. The actors (good!) were from the Pushkin Theatre of Moscow, but the director was Declan Donnellan of the Cheek by Jowl troupe from London. How do people come up with collaborations like that?
The modern dress made sense to me, and it was hard to avoid the relevance of the central story, that a powerful man would force sex on a woman who wouldn't be believed: "My false o'erweighs your true." (except, spoiler, she was believed). I quickly got used to watching actors while reading. The amount of Russian I understood from listening was minimal - family words (brother, sister, husband), pronouns, a few verbs. For most of the play, the actors didn't seem to be miked, except during one strategic scene, when they were standing at microphones. There were lots of people speaking Russian in the lobby - I wonder if they could hear well enough. The biggest distraction to me was the bunch of actors (the ones not currently speaking) who thronged about the stage, or danced, or wove around the big red boxes that provided almost all the stage furniture, except for one small table and two chairs. What the heck? I don't know what meaning we were supposed to take from the movements of the extra folks. They weren't just standing at the edge of the stage watching - it wasn't a play within a play. Beats me.
I'm glad I went. I really don't need to see the play again.
I didn't like it much at the time, although I can't see that it is any more problematic than the rest of Shakespeare's plays. Some people get paired off as they would hope, and some (especially women) are required to be be married to provide a "happy" ending, even though one can tell only misery will follow. Still, I was intrigued at the idea of a production in Russian playing briefly at the Cutler Majestic, wondering whether I could understand any of it (not necessary - it was in English on a screen above the action), so I went. The actors (good!) were from the Pushkin Theatre of Moscow, but the director was Declan Donnellan of the Cheek by Jowl troupe from London. How do people come up with collaborations like that?
The modern dress made sense to me, and it was hard to avoid the relevance of the central story, that a powerful man would force sex on a woman who wouldn't be believed: "My false o'erweighs your true." (except, spoiler, she was believed). I quickly got used to watching actors while reading. The amount of Russian I understood from listening was minimal - family words (brother, sister, husband), pronouns, a few verbs. For most of the play, the actors didn't seem to be miked, except during one strategic scene, when they were standing at microphones. There were lots of people speaking Russian in the lobby - I wonder if they could hear well enough. The biggest distraction to me was the bunch of actors (the ones not currently speaking) who thronged about the stage, or danced, or wove around the big red boxes that provided almost all the stage furniture, except for one small table and two chairs. What the heck? I don't know what meaning we were supposed to take from the movements of the extra folks. They weren't just standing at the edge of the stage watching - it wasn't a play within a play. Beats me.
I'm glad I went. I really don't need to see the play again.
