Some days ago we published
The New York Times's review of Polly Teale's
Jane Eyre as performed by the Acting Company in New York. Today, May 5, is the last chance to see this play at the
Baruch Performing Arts Center in New York.
Some more reviews have been published lately and we have grouped them here:
Ivanna Cullum writes on
nytheatre.com a very interesting review that we highly recommend:
Now the Acting Company's extremely fine production is very much worth seeing—but it also uses an adaptation that will provoke furious debate among fans of the novel. When it is as well done as this production is, this makes for great theater on a number of levels: the show is actively engaging, the story eludes preconceptions, and there is plenty, oh plenty, to discuss afterwards. (Read more)
Julia Furay in
CurtainUp:
In the Acting Company's production Davis McCallum has successfully taken the reins from Polly Teale. Though his staging remains faithful to Teale's vision, he doesn't quite share Teale's clarity of purpose. The focus is somewhat altered, with the invisible string between Jane and Bertha not always perceptible. The problem (if you can call it that) is that McCallum has placed such an emphasis on the basic book scenario that Bertha's importance overall is somewhat diminished here. Though she's constantly moving, we tend to be focused on what's happening between Jane and Rochester to pay much attention. Despite compelling dialogue, McCallum hasn't quite achieved the necessary balance between physicality and the storyline here. (Read more)
Gwen Orel in BackStage.com
One of the best things about this production is that it dramatizes Brontë's insights about the world of men and spirits through the use of objects that are initially real but then remain visible on stage as symbols. For example, Rochester puts his coat around Jane's shoulders after a scare (from what, she doesn't yet know). The next morning at breakfast, we see her still wearing the coat, but the characters behave as if she isn't. As Jane dreamily breathes its scent in, we realize that she's wearing her newfound emotion.
Categories: Jane Eyre, Theatre
Ivanna Cullum's review is definitely the best of the bunch.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that so many reviews of the show are so positive makes me think that most of the reviewers don't actually like the original novel - or haven't read it - and therefore think it is right and just that Jane Eyre be tarted up with psycho-sexual symbolism and actors playing animals.
I saw the May 4 performance at Baruch, and the actor animals really wasn't the worst of it. It was the lack of focus on the truly meaningful aspects of the story. There was quite a bit of a get-the-plot-point-out-of-the-way feeling, especially in the second act. And as Cullum said, the Id/Bertha rule WAS truly thankless - I felt so sorry for the actor who played the role. Mostly she stood inside a box trying to look tragic.
I blame the script, not the actors, who were generally pretty good. The woman who played Adele was especially good, and Rochester was good - I went with some actors, one of whom has worked with Chris before and he's very nice in person.
Hi Nancy,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment full of insight and knowledge. We truly appreciate it.
You probably know more than us about how a script works and doens't work, about stage adaptations, etc. So please take the following as what it is: a personal opinion of a laywoman.
We saw this play last August in London, with a fabulous cast as well and we truly loved it. Personally, I consider it one of my favourite adaptations of the novel.
You said that the reviewers who were so enthusiastic about this play either don't like the original novel or haven't read it. I have read it many times and consider it my all-time favourite book, and still love this adaptation. It might not follow the novel to the letter, parts of it might have been better/differently done still I like it very much.
I bought the script there and then and think it's a good one.
I'm really curious as to what you would make of Polly Teale's other scripts of her Brontë trilogy: Brontë and After Mrs Rochester. If you ever get hold of those or manage to see them on stage, do please tell us your opinion. We'll be all ears :)
Thanks again for stopping by.
Well there's much to discuss. But first - what did you think of having actors playing Mesrour and Pilot?
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought Ivanna Cullum's comment was very interesting:
"In her version of the novel, the adapter, Polly Teale, posits that Bertha Mason [note: this link contains a spoiler vis-a-vis the plot!] is a figment of Jane's psyche. So, here Jane herself is played by Hannah Cabell, while the thankless combined role of Jane's id and Bertha Mason Rochester is played valiantly by Carie Kawa. While this device does make for an occasionally useful physical juxtaposition of id and ego, it also requires some seriously awkward scenes and too many people involved in the final moment. (Besides, Jane Eyre is a 19th century work—if this character is the manifestation of Jane's id, and we then see that id personified as the certifiably insane Bertha Mason, how is it not implied that female drives are innately hysterical?)"
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read about this play being brought again to London's West End I confess I raised an eyebrow at actors playing animals. Then, during the actual play, I laughed with the rest of the audience. Not something I would have done - were I capable of adapting novels to plays! - but I thought it wasn't as bad as I had imagined. It served to make it somewhat less dramatic and remind the audience that Jane Eyre - the actual novel - is not so gloomy either. It has humour that - for whatever reason - wasn't in the play where it is in the novel. That substituted it for better or for worse.
I dislike Freudian interpretations of 19th century literature, so initially I wasn't thrilled about this Bertha/Jane duality either. But I thought it worked on stage as well. The actress playing Bertha in the West End - Myriam Acharki - was really good and her movements and expressions were fantastic.
It made me see things in the novel I hand't seen before. Not the Freudian kind of realisations but just details and paralelisms, contradictions between Bertha and Jane.
So seeing the adaptation was what worked for me and made me accept it. Had I only read about it I don't think I'd be so enthusiastic about it. Then again, as I said, it's all instinct on my part - I don't actually analyse the pros and cons of this adaptation to see whether I should like it or not. I simply do like it.
The play is certainly both an adaptation and interpretation of the novel. It doesn't follow the novel word for word just like Polly Teale's Brontë doesn't follow the Brontë chronology and facts to the letter.