Love for Love
Nov. 13th, 2002 11:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidLast night, Queue and I went to Brandeis to see the next play in their season, Love for Love, by William Congreve. He wrote it in 1695, an English Restoration comedy. The dramaturg's notes mention how liberal things were at that time, and how much that changed soon after; the playwright stopped writing plays a couple of years later.
The plot circles around a spendthrift son pining for his lady-love, who gives him not the time of day. He has a variety of friends, there are many other subplots, all based on who is sleeping with whom. The plot itself wasn't incredibly compelling, but the dialogue and some of the characters were.
The two older actors were particularly excellent in their roles as Sir Sampson and Foresight. The rest of the company were decent. Many characters had descriptive names (Scandal, Tattle, Valentine), though not all... the women got off easier with this.
Dress was modified period, including wonderfully entertaining incredibly high in front wigs with jewels and pointing-straight-up combs in them. Long frock coats, bodices, medium-high heels, even for the men. The most outrageous costume was for Tattle, who had a pink (and orange?) checked frock coat, floral stockings, flowers on his shoes, a huge beige and red checked tie, and a silver curly wig that went halfway down his back... and had two large-ish light blue horns in front. A total fop, and perfectly so.
This play was on the main stage. The floor of the stage was tilted higher on the left than the right (straight across, not at all towards the audience), for no reason I could figure out. Two doors on each side, plus two other exits. Set changes were interestingly done, with people in costume bringing things in, then when all was done, each standing in a doorway, closing all four doors at once. There were two locations used, Valentine's study, and Foresights' drawing room (or similar such rooms). Other than the furniture changes, the former was indicated with a large stuffed alligator hung from wires (and which had some sort of brazier hung from it) that went on a track in and out of one wall (Miss Price's?), while the latter had a huge painting behind (really huge; taller than most rooms' walls...).
The play started and ended with brief scenes with period dancing, which worked pretty well. The script had nice wordplay, and I didn't have the first-few-minutes adjusting time that I need when seeing a Shakespeare production; the language was more easily grasped.
Not so many people in the theater, and the ones who were there seemed to be mostly undergrads and senior citizens (who had a great time, though the hour got late), which seemed strange.
"
The plot circles around a spendthrift son pining for his lady-love, who gives him not the time of day. He has a variety of friends, there are many other subplots, all based on who is sleeping with whom. The plot itself wasn't incredibly compelling, but the dialogue and some of the characters were.
The two older actors were particularly excellent in their roles as Sir Sampson and Foresight. The rest of the company were decent. Many characters had descriptive names (Scandal, Tattle, Valentine), though not all... the women got off easier with this.
Dress was modified period, including wonderfully entertaining incredibly high in front wigs with jewels and pointing-straight-up combs in them. Long frock coats, bodices, medium-high heels, even for the men. The most outrageous costume was for Tattle, who had a pink (and orange?) checked frock coat, floral stockings, flowers on his shoes, a huge beige and red checked tie, and a silver curly wig that went halfway down his back... and had two large-ish light blue horns in front. A total fop, and perfectly so.
This play was on the main stage. The floor of the stage was tilted higher on the left than the right (straight across, not at all towards the audience), for no reason I could figure out. Two doors on each side, plus two other exits. Set changes were interestingly done, with people in costume bringing things in, then when all was done, each standing in a doorway, closing all four doors at once. There were two locations used, Valentine's study, and Foresights' drawing room (or similar such rooms). Other than the furniture changes, the former was indicated with a large stuffed alligator hung from wires (and which had some sort of brazier hung from it) that went on a track in and out of one wall (Miss Price's?), while the latter had a huge painting behind (really huge; taller than most rooms' walls...).
The play started and ended with brief scenes with period dancing, which worked pretty well. The script had nice wordplay, and I didn't have the first-few-minutes adjusting time that I need when seeing a Shakespeare production; the language was more easily grasped.
Not so many people in the theater, and the ones who were there seemed to be mostly undergrads and senior citizens (who had a great time, though the hour got late), which seemed strange.
"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
My comments on the play
Date: 2002-11-13 09:28 am (UTC)I fell asleep shortly after intermission. It was closing in on 10 by then. I think it dragged a bit there, but I was also really tired.
The ending was just nonsense. We find out that the woman who had had no interest in the man all throughout the play really did have interest and was only feigning disinterest to see if he would persist. It almost felt like the ending of the movie version of Breakfast at Tiffany's. I had read the book soon before watching the movie. In the book, the lead man and woman don't get together, and it fits. She's too out there, or whatever. In the movie, they are pretty faithful to how the characters are throughout, and then I just felt like I was hit with a truck when, right at the end, they decided to stay together. What utter crap. I almost felt like that Simpson's episode where they're showing Gone with the Wind at Springfield Retirement Castle. The last scene:
"Frankly my dear", , "I love you. Let's get married."
I did enjoy the play as a whole, though. Good acting, good costumes, and some good lines. And, of course, good company.
Re: My comments on the play
Date: 2002-11-13 09:37 am (UTC)The ending was ridiculous, it's true. We have Our Hero and Our Heroine, so they must end up together. And the schemers are also both tossed together, whether they like it or not. OTOH, it's not like some comedies, where absolutely everyone is paired off by the end.
The other part that annoyed me was that Our Hero was in financial difficulties of his own making, and is just trying to weasel things around to a good place for him. I didn't have much sympathy for him. Had his father not been quite so unfeeling in general, I would've definitely felt he was right in this case.
But, as you say, good production, some good lines, and good company :-).
—