Laughing during Liasons (spoilers)

[Hellob]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 12:02pm

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. 

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 12:04pm

I think it's a fairly funny script. Laughter is in the wrong spots? Or laughing at all?

[Jshan05]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 12:11pm

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. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 1:04pm

Haven't seen this production, but in 1987 much, including the moments you mentioned, was played for and received with laughter, in spite of the cruelty and sexual criminality.  One of the joyous truths of theatre is that something can be funny and horrifying at the same time.   Still, I will never forget what Lindsay Duncan did with "War!" and how chilling it was to the audience; that was not a moment of levity (which is not to say that it couldn't or shouldn't be played differently).

[Hellob]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 1:15pm

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!! 

[Hellob]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 1:21pm

On another note, I've read the book and saw the movie but I'm confused by the ending of the play. The story ends with her being found out and disgraced but this one had the aunt saying the young man is in Malta and Mcteer saying something about the game. I'm not sure what the information about Malta means unless the aunt is telling Mcteer that she knows the truth? But is the eventual demise supposed to be inferred by me? If so, why is she basically saying that the game will continue? Unless I missed part of the final sentence? 

[newintown]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 3:14pm

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.

[EthelMae]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 4:02pm

Ah, well. I'm old. I thought this thread was about the song Liasons from A Little Night Music.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 4:29pm

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.

[Hellob]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 4:48pm

Liev doesn't seem to like a lot of tweets and him liking the one about laughing in the wrong spots makes me think either the audience or the production is flawed. I don't know which. 

[carnzee]

Posted: 11/4/16 at 6:04pm

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. 

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 11/5/16 at 11:48pm

carnzee said: "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."

I think you hit the nail on the head. I saw this today, and his characterization was very monotonous. Pompous from start to finish without any shading along the way to make his arc believable. And there was also a good deal of inappropriate laughter at the performance I attended. 

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 11/6/16 at 12:08am

Wasn't this a storyline on Smash?

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 11/6/16 at 3:18am

Raisins! 

[John Adams]

Posted: 11/6/16 at 7:51am

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.

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 11/6/16 at 11:11am

John Adams said: "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."

While it didn't happen, this might make sense with the character Janet McTeer has crafted as she is just deliciously villainous. But that is definitely not the case with Schreiber in that his performance is also prompting laughter at times when he should be showing signs of vulnerability underneath the vanity and the villainy. It just didn't come through.

 

Updated On: 11/6/16 at 11:11 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/7/16 at 7:58am

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