Forget the poor writing: this is just a play that just has absolutely no focus or aim. Scene after scene goes by and you wonder what the hell the reason was for Rebeck to sit down and write this thing. I almost feel bad for the great Sarah Bernhardt that Rebeck decided to use her legacy (and what could have been a riveting story focusing intensely on her challenges in taking on the role of Hamlet) just to critique and criticize Shakespeare. It's fine to critique the Bard, but if the best parts of your play are snippets pulled from his works... then maybe don't.
On the bright side, Janet McTeer is indeed delightful and excellently elevates the text. She's a magnetic performer. The rest of the cast is delivering solid performances as well.
The scenic design is beautiful. Very reminiscent of the Higgins townhouse set up north at the Vivian Beaumont.
McTeer and the set, however, couldn't stop me from thinking about how much I would've rather seen an actual Shakespeare play.
Forget the poor writing: this is just a play that just has absolutely no focus or aim. Scene after scene goes by and you wonder what the hell the reason was for Rebeck to sit down and write this thing. I almost feel bad for the great Sarah Bernhardt that Rebeck decided to use her legacy (and what could have been a riveting story focusing intensely on her challenges in taking on the role of Hamlet) just to critique and criticize Shakespeare. It's fine to critique the Bard, but if the best parts of your play are snippets pulled from his works... then maybe don't.
On the bright side, Janet McTeer is indeed delightful and excellently elevates the text. She's a magnetic performer. The rest of the cast is delivering solid performances as well.
The scenic design is beautiful. Very reminiscent of the Higgins townhouse set up north at the Vivian Beaumont.
McTeer and the set, however, couldn't stop me from thinking about how much I would've rather seen an actual Shakespeare play.
I’m going to echo most of the other posters here with my thoughts on this one. The director’s notes totes that this is the first-ever commissioned original work that Roundabout has done on Broadway. After seeing this, I couldn’t help but asking, “this was the best thing they could get?”...
Janet McTeer is great, but her performance is not enough to elevate the subpar writing. That being said, I don’t fault her at all as there is only so much a performer (even one as talented as McTeer) can do with poor writing. The constant critiquing of Shakespeare’s poetic language in his plays felt out of place. The supporting cast was fine with no standouts.
The set reminded me a lot of the set for Act One at the Beaumont a few seasons ago. The revolve is used very nicely. The set was definitely the highlight of the show for me.
All in all, this left me pretty cold and even a little frustrated. It’s nowhere near as bad Straight White Men (the only other new play that has opened so far this season), but I’m really hoping for more from this season’s other upcoming new plays than what these two had to offer.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
Saw it last night. I enjoyed it overall but it could use some trimming to focus more on what the play is really about. And although she nails it, McTeer's role/performance is exhausting.
It does help to know your Shakespeare going in but won't stop you from understanding what is going on since the heart of the play is about her personal life. The "twist" was unexpected. Didn't see it coming and maybe some trimming would give it a bit more impact.
A highlight is when Ito Aghayere shows up in Act II. My mind immediately flashed back to Adriane Lenox in "DOUBT". And she looked stunning in that costume.
Beautiful sets and gorgeous costumes. Whitehead was out last night.
I sat row B center in the mezz. Sound was a bit weird for the first few minutes but was fine after that. The big sound problem was with the motorcycles going down 43rd at one point in the show. And the phone that rang for a full minute down in the orchestra.
Saw Wednesday night's performance. Interesting revolving set and some nice costumes. But it hardly qualifies as a play. It is a series of scenes, all involving Sarah Bernhardt. No drama, weak humor, excellent performance by Dylan Baker (his one scene from Hamlet is the only time I was at all interested). A tremendous reliance on the audience knowing who Sarah is, what Hamlet is, what Cyrano is. I adore Janet McTeer but she seems trapped in this vehicle, and seems to be working too hard to be an actress portraying an actress. Glad I had a ticket through TDF. Would not have spent a penny more to be there. I always stay till the end - even when it seems to be more of the same. Don't expect Act Two to be better than Act One.
I agree with an earlier post that suggested a single 100 minute play might have been better. Or at least shorter. There was a lot of padding in Act One that did nothing more than show Rebeck has read some discussions of Hamlet's age.
One thing I adore about Janet McTeer is that she is the typical British actress that develops muscle memories over the years but channels them differently in every character. I was glad I saw this show, and seriously as a long-term die hard fan of Janet (The only thing I didn't see her in is probably The Duchess of Malfi back in 2002), I can see her challenging herself over the years and making actual progress. I am pleased to see her participating in a comedic drama.
During the time I saw this production (The second preview), there is rarely focus. The story jumps around feminism and Shakespeare - I would rather think this is a character piece with broken scenes put together. I would never say I hate it, but it is definitely not the best piece Janet has worked with.
The set/costume is nice but overshadows the story itself - It's like a gigantic and beautiful gift box containing a piece of feather. They support the characters nice but not the plot and writing. But I did enjoy the tittle tribute they had at the end.
The set was beautiful and I loved seeing it transition from scene to scene. But oh my god I was so ****ing bored the entire time. And I was really unsatisfied by the ending.
This once again shows me that I'm really not a Rebeck fan. Unfocused, beige writing. Just boring and flat. The design is beautiful and the cast does their best, but it's just not a very good play.
im surprised by this thread. maybe i was helped by having a very basic knowledge of back story, but i sat up in the very top at the 4th preview and wasnt bored at all. better writing than most new crap. yes shes great, but the rest is pretty good too. not eveything can be hamilton
rg7759 said: "im surprised by this thread. maybe i was helped by having a very basic knowledge of back story, but i sat up in the very top at the 4th preview and wasnt bored at all. better writing than most new crap. yes shes great, but the rest is pretty good too. not eveything can be hamilton"
I don't think that anyone on this board went into this play expecting Hamilton, but what was delivered in terms of playwriting left a hell of a lot to be desired in my opinion. And this is coming from someone who went in with low expectations.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
Saw this last night and pretty much agree with others that it’s not a great play, though McTeer is a lot of fun, and the rest of the cast is pretty good, too.
but I have a question about the text, which revolves around, I guess, a spoiler.
I don’t know how to do that Toggle Spoiler button, and the Help feature isn’t very helpful on that count.
SPOILER BELOW:
so lots (and lots) of the play is about whether or not Bernhardt is going to preserve Shakespeare’s poetry. But she was going to perform it in French, right? So it was always going to be a translation. And the question of whether or not to translate English iambic pentameter into French iambic pentameter or French prose is very different than the question of whether to speak Shakespeare as he wrote it in English or in an English prose translation, isn’t it?
or am I missing something? Everything I find online says that Bernhardt spoke no English, so I don’t think she’d have performed the original Shakespeare in any case.
She was a good cook, as cooks go; and as cooks go, she went.
I saw yesterday's matinee and had the same sorts of questions as TooManyLegs. I don't know what language(s) the real-life characters used, but it seems like the audience has to take the fictional Bernhardt, Rostand, et al., as English speakers (and writers) for purposes of the play. Otherwise, they would seemingly just be arguing the merits of a particular French translation of Hamlet, and the discussion of iambic vs. non-iambic, poetry vs. prose, etc., would hardly be of interest.
In any event, I thought the show as a whole was well-acted and had plenty of nice moments -- but, as others have suggested, it came across as a rough draft that needs considerably more work. Plus, it suffered (in my view) from a sometimes cliched approach to biographical fiction -- I found particularly annoying the scene where one of the characters has to announce to another how much everyone loves and is inspired by Bernhardt.
Although my own opinion was mixed, much of the audience seemed to like the show more -- there was fairly frequent laughter, considerable applause after one or two scenes, and a mostly enthusiastic ovation at the end.
Random observation: it has always been my understanding that English is the only language that uses iambic pentameter because of the high number of one and two syllable words, making the rhythm possible.
Now that attentive viewers have asked these questions (thank you), the characters do talk about the "i-ams" which suggests the form of poetry in English. Which just makes so much of that first act even more confusing to me. And is there any historical basis to believe that the Divine Sarah had trouble with poetry? Or are we to believe that she just couldn't handle the part and used that as an excuse?
This thread is actually more interesting than the play itself.
wonkit said: "This thread is actually more interesting than the play itself."
You're right about that, wonkit.
According to http://theshakespeareblog.com/2015/09/the-divine-sarah-bernhardts-hamlet/ , Bernhardt played Hamlet in French, even when she performed it in Stratford, to the annoyance of the Birmingham Post, which said that the prose of the French version “seemed out of character in the poet’s Birthplace".
If you're writing contemplative fiction about a real life historical figure it should be necessary to leave open the possibility that it might have been true, no matter how far fetched. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
My main problem was that Rebeck cheated by quoting long sections of Hamlet and Cyrano to pad out the running time. McTeer had some great one-liners, but the story was very thin with little resolution.
A lot of people are mentioning that the play needed some trimming, but I saw it on Saturday and thought the pace, flow and length was perfect for what Rebeck was trying to get across. Janet McTeer really nailed Sarah Bernhardt and the rest of the cast was really great too. I was a big fan of the production.
I saw it this weekend and pretty much agree with everyone else's assessment. McTeer and cast are great despite the material but the play is too long and too unfocused. It's like Rebeck threw in everything she knew about Bernhardt and nobody edited her. The Cyrano stuff was especially egregious. (I also didn't think we needed to see her son. He just reiterated what we already knew.)
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.