Theater Talk No Man's Land & Waiting for Godot
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- We welcome actors Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Patrick Stewart who are appearing on Broadway in Harold Pinter's No Man's Land and Samuel Beckett's Waiting For Godot. Joining them is Sean Mathias who directed these productions.Original tape date: November 8, 2013.
First aired: December 21, 2013.
Theater Talk welcomes actors Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart along with director Sean Mathias to discuss their productions of "No Man's Land" and "Waiting for Godot" which are being performed in repertory at Broadway's Cort Theatre.
Pinter and Ralph Richardson nailed dementia. The confusion, the sudden memories of youth, the odd profanity, the wandering off, and of course the forgetfulness.
Also how dementia sufferers long to be around people of the same age. How it comforts them.
Pinter also nails the stress and prickliness of the carers. How tending to the whims of the sufferer becomes a kind of trap of endless anticipation. Until you shut off and just go through the motions like a butler, because you have to.
And no matter how much you hate the drudgery, you can become oddly addicted, given caring means you can escape from your own life, in thinking about another. Carers often running away from their own demons. Looking for their own no man's land.
Also how you can get weirdly jealous by the influence of outsiders. The carers take an automatic dislike to Spooner, probably in the knowledge they neglect the sufferer, so are instantly defensive and suspicious.
But I've seen the same attitude from the most diligent of carers, the same paranoia. Like you innocently ask a question, and they immediately snap back like you're criticizing them.
I suppose Briggs and Foster are the villains of the piece, but as a former carer I sympathize with them to an extent. Anyone who has cared, is never that critical of fellow carers, even if they sometimes neglect their duties. It's a tough job.
Briggs and Foster are not the best, but by no means the worst I've come across. Which demonstrates Pinter's genius as a playwright, he could've easily made them pantomime villains. Instead he paints them as irritable and somewhat dodgy, but not without some understanding. They could just throw Spooner out, but they see Hirst's fondness for him, so have some care for Hirst. It's like they are testing Spooner, probing him, seeing what he's about.
Maybe they see themselves in Spooner, someone who has failed in life, looking to care as an escape from their own reality.
The uplifting part of the play, is the idea that failure is always relative. In deconstructing the meaning of failure, Pinter shows us a once successful man, now with dementia/ being taken care of by failures. As if Hirst's success is now irrelevant.
Just as the failure of Spooner, the humble pint pot collector at the Bull's Head in Chalk Farm, is also irrelevant. Ultimately, success or failure we will all get old, we will all get sick, and we'll all die.
We all end up in the same no man's land, neither successes or failures - or perhaps both.
A very illuminating analysis.
I saw Waiting for Godot just after Christmas and it was INCREDIBLE. Sir Ian is just incorrigible on stage, and the acting and interaction between Sir Patrick and Sir Ian was just wonderful. I was looking forward to seeing these two actors in their own element on stage instead of film, and I was not disappointed in the slightest.
Thanks for posting this. Am seeing GODOT next week. This is great prep for what's to come
Saw Godot in NY, and wondered how maybe the grimmest play ever written could be done as a comedy. They did the brutal very end of the play straight, and the audience, used to being amused, was aghast, silent. People today are not prepared to deal with a play that pounds on the idea is meaningless, absurd, cruel. And then you die, as the play puts it. No Man’s Land, however, was a tour de force, meta-theater, where we see action, dialogue, characters-all totally persuasive, and we have no idea if a word of what we saw is true or any idea what it means. It’s “ a play,” minus specific content. Brilliant experience.
Back before Riedel went off the deep end.
Is it just me, or does Susan look incredibly pissed off when Michael cuts her off at 1:03 ? It’s hilarious how she tries to suppress her anger 😂. But rightly so! I like Michael, but let the lady speak!
Michael is being a prick!!!!
A never-ending situation
Cunny? Nah!