Laughing during Liasons (spoilers)

I felt like there was a lot of innapropriate laughing during the show. My belief that they weren't going for laughs was confirmed by Liev liking a tweet from someone who thought the laughter was undesirable. For those who saw it, do you think the audience laughs because they aren't getting the cruelty of the characters or because of poor direction and execution by the leads? I don't think Liev played the scene with the young girl with darkness, when he keeps his promise to remove his hand but inserted something else he delivered the line in a comedic manner.

Ah I'm so happy someone brought this up. I turned to my friend at intermission wondering the exact same thing! I don't think it had anything to do with the direction or actors themselves. I kept wondering how the audience couldn't see the cruelty of these characters, even with some more humorous moments sprinkled in the script. I was just baffled, especially in Janet Mcteer's most heightened moment. Towards the end of the play when the Vicont tells her he needs her answer of either "yes or no" about keeping her end of the bargain and then she so ferociously fires back "WAR!" A few people around me were chuckling during that part, which I felt completely inappropriate.

Not the intentionally funny parts like the double entendres, etc. People laughed during the scene with the young girl when she changed from resistance to enjoyment and the "it's beyond my control" scene. There were a few other places. Not sure if they don't understand or use a defense mechanism to not have to see the darkness. I mean, these are vicious people and a girl is getting raped while people are chuckling. Maybe I just had a bad crowd bc I heard so many phones going off in both acts. I have never been to a show with so many phones. I even heard Siri twice!!

There a lot of dark comedy in Hampton's play. More of it played in the original brilliant production than in that pretty rotten Linney revival.

But if one can't tell that the dark humor is intentional, something is wrong - either with the production, or with the individual's ability to perceive dark humor.

I actually thought one of the problems with this production was that it took itself too seriously. The original production was indeed very funny. If you don't create situations for the audience to laugh, they will inevitably laugh at the "serious" bits of melodrama.

The audience I was in was a good one for the most part, and seemed to be enjoying themselves. But there was some inappropriate laughter, and most of it revolved around Schreiber's character Valmont and his pivot from scoundrel to being genuinely in love with Tourvel. It just wasn't believable, and I say that as someone who overall liked Schreiber. So when he claimed to be a changed man, it came off as just another lie from Valmont. The audience thought the character was being glib or manipulative, and therefore laughed.

Wasn't this a storyline on Smash?

I don't think that people only laugh because they find something humorous. I think that sometimes people laugh when the drama/intensity (especially villainous behavior) of a situation is so well crafted, or performed that it brings them enjoyment. I don't know if that might be the case here, as I haven't seen the production.

Personally, I loved the movie version (with the exception of Keanu Reeves) because Malkovich and Close played up the intense tragedy those characters created for themselves and others, but I could also enjoy a production where the characters were skewed towards the melodramatic.

Hellob, as I said before, that scene between Valmont and Cecile was definitely received with laughter in 1987 and I'm not surprised it is now. Not because the audience doesn't realize what they are watching, or doesn't care, but because they do. This is a very cruel, provocative comedy of sexual (bad) manners. Laughter doesn't imply insensitivity; often just the opposite in fact.

As to the ending, indeed. Hampton's ending is quite different than the novel's ending and the similar ending in Hampton's screenplay for Dangerous Liaisons. But what I recall mostly about the play's ending - when I first saw it in 1987 - is that it was faux-Chekhovian self-consciousness, it's foreshadowing of the forthcoming historical transition, a wink to the approaching Revolution (and with that, by implication that Merteuil and all her class might well get there's soon). It was somewhat interesting in 1987 and perhaps a way of avoiding the melodrama of an explicit comeuppance for Merteuil (crime does pay.... or does it?). I don't recall the chat about Malta and the young man (Danceny?), which is not to say it wasn't there, but only that it has been almost 30 years.

Updated On: 11/7/16 at 07:58 AM