Estrangements I

Praise is worth heaping on the BAM/Old Vic 'Bridge Project,' and its first production of The Cherry Orchard, which I saw at its first preview. Tom Stoppard provides a deft adaptation of the original Chekhov. It's called the "Bridge Project" because half of the actors are British and half are Yanks.

The cast will work together for a year and tour the world, and began by spending two months rehearsing both The Cherry Orchard and A Winter's Tale. It seems the virtue of ensemble is back in play, and not only at the now community-minded RSC. Apparently, normally freelancing Americans can join companies, too. Sam Mendes, the director, says that rehearsals began in a circle, so actors could build bonds with one another. And the media always like the idea of prominent actors foregoing more lucrative work for art (even when it sends them on an trip around the world). Ethan Hawke says he likes playing two roles instead of having to repeat just one. So NPR produced this story: A Bridge Project Built To Span Theatrical Worlds : NPR

I'm not going to give anything away, and the last thing I want to do is review the production, but the show struck me as a clear example of an aspect of theater-making to which I eluded in this post. It's worth saying, too, that I saw the January 3 preview, and that the show may be different now.

For all its great strengths, Mendes' 'Orchard' suffers from the same intermittent malaise I feel infected every production of scripted drama I've seen since August (and parts of August Osage County, too, before that). The cause has little to do with Mendes' work with the actors, which I found elegant, and touching, if a bit too decorous. Rather, it is the way in which the show overtly exhibits Mendes' personal interpretation and directorial presence that creates an unnecessary distance between the actors and the audience. In other words, the actors were left behind in tech. I point this out not to criticize Mendes or the production directly, but to begin a discussion of how hierarchy and intellectualization diminish the creative possibilities of transparency and immediacy in the theater... and how audiences are unwittingly distanced from what makes theater unique: their co-presence with the actors.

On Charlie Rose's show the night before, Rose asked Mendes why -- if film is a director's medium and theater is a playwright's medium -- why do you still direct for the stage?

This is an estranging question on many levels, particularly since actors are left out of the equation. It's as though Rose believes that what brings a director to prominence is the way in which he distinguishes himself, rather than through the fruit of his collaborations. In answering Rose, Mendes doesn't mention his use of sound, light and scenery to -- to coin a word -- to cinematize his production. Who would want to admit to "improving" on Chekhov and Stoppard, exept an autuer? Too European. But he does answer Rose's real question, which is about success, leaving aside a discussion of his own work. Mendes' discussion of The Bridge Project starts at 16:20:



Even though I think some of Mendes' choices are heavy-handed, they are executed at an accomplished level and reflect worthwhile ideas, clearly because of a desire to provide a fresh interpretation of the play. But deliberate theatricality is not good theater per se. The director's voice here is not alienating in a Brechtian sense, which would elicit the shock of true illumination. Mendes makes himself known through a series of instructive interruptions.

Mendes wants to make a clear interpretive statement, and however interesting or new that statement may be for some, I felt somehow consumerized: I consumed an interpretation, rather than becoming immersed in a vital experience. Much of the time, the actors ruled the stage. Mendes is clearly a populist at heart, and I was mostly touched and engaged. A friend told me she'd never truly "got" the play until that night. That's a great accomplishment, but it's worth remembering that sympathetic clarity is not the same as uninterrupted passionate involvement.

Directorial distancing can happen in many ways. In other cases, the theoretical dogma behind the director's authority can be less generous and deft, though the issues of directorial control and producorial status are at the dark heart of many productions' remoteness ...

More to come.