Comments on: Singing Far into the Night

By: peter arnott

peter arnott — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:13:59 +0000

Hey Mark!

Right of reply! Big old can of worms there, matey!

By: Brian Thomas

Brian Thomas — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:06:01 +0000

I was so pleased to be part of the audience for the performance of ‘Singing Far into the Night’ at Bunessan Hall in September. As a person interested in theatre, but with little exposure to contempory productions I was amazed and captivated. On all levels the evening was memorable.The choreography worked seamlessly with the movable modual sets using the performers as set care takers, and the lighting on faces brought pathos to the narration, while sound played its part chillingly.
Now the story. Like all good stories this was told from the heart. The writer emersed in his landscape and heritage. .The actors for I beleive, a first night were word perfect and did great service to ‘Singing Far into the Night’.
To conclude. the tradition of bringing theatre to people is never more pertinent than in the rural community. It is a catalist for life.

Brian Thomas Bunessan

By: Mark Fisher

Mark Fisher — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:01:43 +0000

Yes, Jon. I agree. It seems to me far more useful and interesting for a review to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. It’s easy for me to say that, though. The hard thing is for someone in Hamish’s position to step forward and join the debate – and it’s great that he has.
Mark

By: Kenny Mathieson

Kenny Mathieson — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 07:28:54 +0000

While I would support the role of the experienced and well-informed critic in the process, I certainly welcome this kind of level of engagement and debate on Northings – indeed, it is precisely what we hoped for in adding a public forum. It would be good to see more of a debate on wider issues in the arts in the H&I.

By: Jon Pope

Jon Pope — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:18:04 +0000

Actually I think this feisty conversation between reviewer and reviewee is extremely healthy and bodes well for the future. The previous press model was based on the ‘expert’ (reviewer) summatively evaluating a work that the artist usually regarded formatively. This clash is/was never pretty especially if the reviewer chose to make personal remarks. In the past, I have seen grown men and women weep at some of the observations made by a particular journalist who works for the Scotsman. However, we now have the opportunity for not only artist and critic to enagage in a debate, but also the audience (usually lost in all the hullabaloo). So as the press model changes we can now substitute dialogue for soliloquy.

By: Colin, Mhairi

Colin, Mhairi — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 15:38:59 +0000

This intense production delivered an electric atmosphere to a packed village hall. The unconventional storyline, far from confusing us kept our attention and drew us into the characters and history. The set design met the challenges of the story; morphing seamlessly around the actors at every change of scene. An absorbing and stimulating experience, all round.

By: hamish

hamish — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:47:36 +0000

Sir. I salute your magnanimity!

By: Alasdair

Alasdair — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:27:09 +0000

…and there I think we should maybe leave it for the present, except to say that the tour is going great guns, audiences are holding up well, especially given it’s the first outing for a tricky new play which undeniably sets many challenges to its audiences (not to mention its actors, director, designers and those selling tickets). Feedback from venes remains extremely positive and those who are thinking about going should not be put off by those challenges as I’m sure they will relish what is actually a very enjoyable evening, one which I, a hardened old theatre director, still find very engaging and moving. There’s some nice tunes, too.

By: Mark Fisher

Mark Fisher — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:02:52 +0000

Hi Hamish, yes, all fair points!

By: hamish

hamish — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 10:07:29 +0000

Hi – just tuning back into this (if there is anybody still out there) – Mark – I don’t have a problem at all that you didn’t like this – you are prefectly entitled not to – or even that you might be able to conceive of better ways of structuring and producing such a piece (more of which in a moment) – which is why I originally commented purely upon the fact that you had raised an issue of unanswered questions within the storyline. It appears however from your subsequent response that you did know the answers to these questions after all, but did not engage entirely with the manner in which they were revealed. Why does Finlay return to Scotland? – this is given out in an exchange between him and Connal when it is evident that he has returned some years later to publicise a book on the Soviet system, learning that his brother has been institutionalised for some years in psychiatric care. Ok, so we don’t actually see Finlay conceiving his book, typing it up, going to the publishers, etc. etc., but hopefully we can infer from his position as a journalist with TASS that such things are possible. (As Len Wincott returned to the UK in 1974 with his book ‘Invergordon Mutineer’, though this had nothing to do with glorifying the Soviet system). To realise what you suggest, I think what we would be looking at here is not a couple of actors to put yet more strain on Mull Theatre’s budget for a one and a half hour play, but possibly a budget of Spielberg proportions to realise each scene and location, with a few hundred extras thrown in for the riot scenes as well. I’m reminded obliquely of the middle-age passion plays which were played out in actual time over four days from the crucifixion to the resurrection, when occasionally the poor guy playing the Saviour on the cross would have his heart pack in from the strain of being tied up there so long. (He’s not the Messiah – he’s a very dead actor). Hopefully since then we have learned something about how to condense our dramas – and why it might be apparent that a story of several decades played out on stage requires at least some artistic and narrative licence to allow it to work – if it works at all. I look forward with some relish to the day a director hands an actor the stage direction – ‘Go mad.’

By: Mark Fisher

Mark Fisher — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:09:57 +0000

Yes, a few more characters who do no harm (except to the Mull Theatre budget).

By: hamish

hamish — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:45:10 +0000

Hi Mark. Points taken, which are interesting points, and possibly highlight some of the risks of setting a story within an episodic context. Instant reaction was that what you have described is likely something demanding of a bigger ensemble. It is a very big story to try to tell, which I’m sure won’t have everyone responding as generously as the inhabitants of Strachur.

By: Mark Fisher

Mark Fisher — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:37:22 +0000

Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. Glad people are enjoying the show.

And sorry, Hamish, I didn’t know about the lighting rig failure – I wouldn’t have mentioned it if I knew there’d been problems.

Thanks for your other comments – it’s good you took the time to respond (many wouldn’t!)

I guess the point I was making – no doubt, inadequately – was that some of the narrative information could have been communicated more dramatically. It’s that balance between telling and showing.

For example, we don’t see Finlay and Erica’s split but find out about it after the fact, which means we have a lot of catching up to do. I might be remembering wrongly, but I think there’s a similar thing with the station scene in that we don’t see them being charged with treason, just referring back to it. Likewise, we can observe Connal is mentally ill and surmise that it’s got something to do with his treatment, but we don’t actually see that process in action.

So it’s not exactly that I didn’t understand the play (I read the programme note before it started, so actually had a very good grasp of it), more that I didn’t feel it told its interesting story in as immediate a way as it could have done.

All those being moved and giving standing ovations clearly don’t feel the same way and I agree with Joyce McMillan’s review in the Scotsman today that it’s good to see a play with what she calls “a strong sense of historical and political perspective”.

Good luck with the rest of the run.

By: hamish

hamish — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:14:43 +0000

Hi Mark. It’s always a risky business for a writer to respond to a review as it may lead to a suspicion of self-righteous indignation, or in the worst extremes, self-delusion. However as this is a forum I occasionally contribute to – well – here goes anyway – as you have raised an issue of unresolved questions that I had imagined were explored and enunciated within the play. For example, what causes Finlay and Erica to flee to Russia from Scotland? The answer being that they were charged with the capital offence of Treason – spoken of in some detail in the railway platform scene. What happened to drive Finlay and Erica apart when they reached Russia? – this is looked at when they finally meet up in Kolyma – he has toed the party line and she has not – leading to her exile. And so on. I haven’t had the chance to catch up with the play since it opened – and certainly wouldn’t imagine it to be absolutely everyone’s cup – but the most consistent reports I have heard so far have been to do with very positive and enthusiastic audience responses (including a standing ovation in Strachur!) – so I can only assume that somebody, somewhere, is managing to follow an admittedly non-conventionally structured storyline. It’s a real pity that the lighting rig failed just prior to the performance you saw, leaving the production manager with a very hard task. It is a beautifully lit design, and to this highly subjective view picks out four very fine performances within a dynamic and adaptable set. Happy with all or any colours of opinion, but since you have raised them, thought it possibly only fair to point out the answers to your questions.

p.s. I don’t know anybody in Strachur!
p.p.s. I don’t know whow Irene and Ian are either.

By: Kenny Mathieson

Kenny Mathieson — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:27:25 +0000

Look out for an interview with Hamish MacDonald on this site from 1 October.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:12:51 +0000

Your critic seems to be so hung up on his own inability to follow an admitedly complex plot that he missed out on what was a gripping and ultimately intensly moving drama. The questions raised by Mr Fisher answer themselves – the interrogator is the interrogator, Connal goes mad because of what happens to him – and so on.
Go and see this play, it will educate , move and stimulate, that is if you are not Mr Fisher.

By: irene

irene — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:12:13 +0000

this production does not deserve your critic it was extremely well acted directed produced and written also lighting was perfect in the content it conveyed