Ivanov at CSC

I agree. The cast last night was sensational. I am in awe of how excellent these CSC productions are lately. Top notch. Definitely go see this if you can snag a ticket.

I'm glad to hear it, Whizzer! On the page, I find the play one of Chekhov's most difficult and least rewarding. I'm glad somebody sorted it out on its feet.

Good to hear. Seeing it this Saturday.

What could have been a decent production is absolutely ruined by Ethan Hawke--one of the worst actors I have ever seen in a big-budget production. I reviewed it here: http://scribicide.com/2012/11/11/scenes-from-a-marriage/

I take your point--and perhaps I was being unfair. I am well aware of Hawke's history with Chekhov, and a friend of mine, whose opinion I greatly respect, has been raving about his performance in THE CHERRY ORCHARD for years.

Still, I tend to group him in the category of actors who earn parts because of celebrity and not talent (though, admittedly, that might not have been the case in his Broadway debut). Therefore, "dabble" is meant to suggest that his relationship with the theater is cynical and superficial, even if he does have the credentials and the history.

It is frustrating for me to see so many great performers relegated to smaller productions and smaller roles because bigger names draw bigger audiences (and, therefore, more money)--so that's where I was coming from with that comment.

> his relationship with the theater is cynical and superficial.

Except it isn't.

Hawke's appeared in dozens of plays, on and off Broadway, and in some of the country's most highly-regarded regional companies (e.g., Steppenwolf). He's directed twice, and even won an obscure-ish award for his commitment to theater.

I take the larger point about film stars dabbling, but Hawke's stage cred is more than sufficient.

---

That's a poor comparison, aaronb.

Politicians are cynical and superficial by nature. They are the only types of people who can make it so far in politics.

By calling Hawke's relationship with theater "superficial," it implies that he does it for some sort of credibility, like when Julia Roberts did Three Days of Rain or when Madonna did Speed the Plow. Hawke continually works in the theater in different kinds of dramatic works and in different positions and not always at prominent theaters. I'd hardly call that "superficial."

That being said, having seen him in interviews he does come off as a bit of a douche. But that has nothing to do with his theater work.

---

Oh and aaronb, Ethan HAS played Hamlet on film--that modern day one from ten years or so that used a lot of modern media--I admit I have largely forgotten about it myself, though at the time I remember thinking it sorta worked.

I actually liked Almereyda's HAMLET, if only because he had the courage to try something new.

And I don't think it's fair to say that politicians are superficial and cynical by nature--and that ONLY those kind of people can be successful in politics--seems like kind of an easy statement to make. I don't know any personally, but I would guess there are plenty who are genuinely good people.

"Superficial" can imply more than just a bid for credibility (though for me, that's definitely part of it)--it can also mean he's stupid, which I suspect he is, that his relationship with the texts he's performing are not as interesting as they would be if the part were in the hands of a better actor. You can throw as much Shakespeare and Chekhov as you want at him, but if he doesn't have the talent, it's not going to make much of a difference.

I guess, based on these comments, that the only good performance Hawke has given is the one where he plays a serious actor.

@themysteriousgrowl--something knowing and self-effacing, like those great cameos on EXTRAS. Certainly turned me around on Orlando Bloom.

This is a long shot, but does anyone have a ticket they want to part with? It's sold out until Sunday and I'm desperate to see it... If you do, please PM me or send me an email at laure.ientale at gmail.com ?

---