SAINT JOAN (2018) Previews — Page 3

Synecdoche2 wrote: "The fact that people consider this play too talky does not bode well for the future of audiences’ attention span."

It doesn't bode well for the future, period. Nor does it reflect well on the present, either. But when you have people proclaiming on a public forum that some overblown soap opera is superior to every play Shakespeare (and anyone else) ever wrote, really, what can you expect?

It's now clear that one of the (many) good things about the good old days is that technology didn't allow one to broadcast arrant foolishness to the world at large.

I really enjoyed this. I love the play, and don't find it too talky at all. But that's just a matter of personal taste, I think. I love plays that are really dialogue-driven, especially when they involve intense philosophical and moral debates. For me, the evening totally flew by - didn't check my watch once, which is rare for me.

I agree there were some aspects of the direction that were distracting and heavy-handed, but I think Sullivan has a great sense of the basic drama of the piece. Each moment (of the actual scenes) was clear and engaging, and the show as a whole was very well-paced.

Loved the acting, especially Rashad and Davenport.

I saw the Donmar production last year, and while I found that one to be more well-directed, I thought Condola Rashad was superior to Gemma Arterton.

I will say though that I didn't care for the epilogue. They had a drastically shortened (and altered) version of it at the Donmar, and wish they had done the same thing here. That was the only scene that I really didn't like, but I think that's really Shaw's fault. Sullivan handled it as well as he could have, I think.

So I did end up seeing this. I didn't find the pipes distracting at all. Or the lighting too dark. Maybe there were changes.

I agree with Whizzer that Condola Rashad was better in act 2, partially because Joan has more emotional material in act 2 and partially because that means she's less able to stick to her odd character choices from act 1. I found her portrayal of Joan very... forceful and exuberant. Which is fine but it was very one-note when she delivered all her lines that way with no depth or sensitivity or... levels. Also, this is the first I've seen her in. Does she always deliver her lines that way? I couldn't tell if she was trying to do an accent or "projecting" or had just chosen a weird cadence for her line delivery. I lost some of the words and she tossed out some lines very rhythmically like she wasn't thinking at all about what she was actually saying. I had trouble connecting to the character as a real person when everyone else was giving more comparatively naturalistic performances.

I did feel a sense of inevitability about the ending which works against how sympathetic you can find Joan, or at least how much you can root for her. However, I didn't feel the three hours at all. I thought it was a two hour play until I checked the time at the end.

And I do think we're supposed to care about Joan and find her more compelling than I did. I think it's hard to do a feminist reading that isn't divorced from the religious context especially since Joan doesn't feel that held back by her gender. If anything she's more masculine or at least gender nonconforming and she certainly doesn't seem to care much about other women so it's hard to see her as any kind of advocate or feminist icon, at least as portrayed in this play. Maybe I would feel differently if I were religious but I don't think we'll ever be ready for "saints" like Joan, at least as written in this play. Forget proud or disobedient and not behaving in a seemly matter for a woman at that time. It's hard to champion a character who is always convinced that she is right with little tangible evidence and I don't feel like play made her a fully realized character enough for you to examine whether she had other wants and desires besides her religious purpose (and eventually her desire for freedom) to know how much of her actions were driven more by self-interest even though words like pride, conceit, arrogance, etc. kept coming up.

However, I did enjoy myself and I do think all the veteran actors are giving fine performances. I actually enjoyed all the talk, even if it doesn't come to a satisfying conclusion.

You either like Shaw or you don't. Going in, you have to be prepared (if the text isn't slashed) for a lot of talk, and if the actors are good and if you listen, that talk will be fascinating.

I thought Patrick Page, John Glover, and Robert Stanton were A-list in this production, showing exactly how Americans can master Shaw. Rashad tried hard, but she doesn't (yet?) quite have the chops for this kind of role, which is really something a 30-year-old Judi Dench or Vanessa Redgrave would kill - actors with much more training and live experience playing text-heavy roles. Rashad's effort was far too obvious, and she often fell into the trap of playing a mood (and she gesticulated with her hands far too much for my taste - it seemed to be a distraction from her acting, rather than a part of it).