Bacchae...good? how are balcony seats?

[johnsolt]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 8:54pm

anybody seen it and how are balcony seats?

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 12:59pm

Saw the Bacchae on Sunday. I had never been to a Greek tragedy so I was trying to experience something new. I did not hate it but I did not love it. It was 90 minutes and I liked the second half of it (don't want to give away the plot) better than the first half. Some musical numbers were interspersed in the dialogue portions and it was presented well. Alan was good, his entrance was fun. The photos online give you the impression he is going regimental uner his kilt but from my vantage point on the side he did have a thong up the back with a pouch covering in front. Although I don't find nudity on stage offensive...there were many times that his moves onstage and seated positions would have provided a view to those in front. If you have an opportunity to go - go with an open mind to see something different. The balcony - seats are up there like any other balcony. I was lucky to get a cheap seat in orchestra on the side. To be honest...I saw Title of Show the following night and between the two - like Bacchae better than Title of Show! no joke

[jrb]

Posted: 7/9/08 at 1:30pm

The balcony was fine. Decent view and I was in the last possible row so no worries about sight lines and such.

As for the show *possible spoilers* :

I wanted to enjoy it - I really did. And before I go into the production itself, let me make it clear that Alan Cumming was very good. Granted, it seemed like an easy job for him. He was playing one of his androgynous stock characters, but it worked well.

Actually, let me say that all of the actors were good. Nothing stand out, but solid work.

The sets were adequately avant-guarde. They utilized white walls (apparently a prerequisite in "edgy" theater) flames, and blood. There were some cool effects - the most impressive and stirring to me being a simple floral effect near the beginning of the show.

My issues came with two key elements: the chorus and the pacing/direction.

The chorus was transformed into a gospel/R&B group. They took lines usually reserved for a single spoken chorus and amped them up via dance and song. The problem was that they couldn't really dance. No, that's unfair. They could dance but they seemed to lack conviction and unity. On top of this, two of them kept falling about 1/4 tone flat throughout. As a result, you could tell what the chords were supposed to be but they just seemed off. The lack of conviction coupled with the pitch issues and messy cut-offs made the whole thing seem very dress rehearsal to me. I didn't look forward to their interludes.
However, there was one section - a quartet - that sounded wonderful and made me wish that they had kept the singing chorus down to 4 people and used either dancers or played with shadows in order to create the illusion of many.

As for the direction - Cumming and the cast made this a comedy. It was over the top for about 2/3rds of the piece. The audience was laughing and disarmed. Then, as if someone had pasted a different play onto the end, it all went tragic (the NY Times review made note of this, as well). Within 30 minutes there was blood everywhere and all of the joy that had characterized the first portion of the evening had vanished. It was odd and disjointed and the anachronistic mentality of the piece fell apart when the truer, tragic meaning came into focus. It was like watching two different shows.

So...IMHO...worth it so that I could see Alan Cumming and the other actors and the theater.