Sunday, February 19, 2012

Travelling Light Review

Travelling Light
(Lyttelton Theatre, National Theatre, London - National Theatre Live Screening)

I have had an interest in films for the last few years. I took part in a Film Studies course at college and during the first year of University, where I learn't about the early years of cinema. I was therefore keen to see Travelling Light, by Nicholas Wright, a play about an eastern European Jewish village in 1900, where the inhabitants discover the wonders of film. It is currently performing at the National Theatre's Lyttelton, but I saw this, and a post show talk, during a cinema screening as part of the National Theatre Live season.
A famed American film director, Motl Mendl, looks back on his younger years living in his home village. Damien Molony plays a younger Motl, who discovers a Lumiere cinematograph in his deceased father’s camera shop. Although he desires to leave the village for good, he is persuaded by fellow villager Jacob Bindel, played by Antony Sher, to create films for the others to see. Motl is helped by a girl named Anna Mazowiecka, played by Lauren O’Neil, whom he falls in love with. During filming, Motl tries to put up with the demands of the villagers, especially the persistent Jacob.
The play does touch upon film a good deal during the first half. You can tell that Nicholas Wright had done his homework by making references to such things like the Lumiere Brothers Cinematograph, the speed the film needed to be filmed at, and how an unorthodox studio would use sunlight in order to light up the set. There were scenes where Motl and Anna would explain how film was created, how to edit film, or how to use the camera's lenses to zoom in and out.
What got me interested in this play was that it's description on the theatre's website said that Motl had discovered a revolutionary way of storytelling. Due to the Eatern European setting, what sprung to my mind was the editing technique, montage. Officially, it is known that Montage was discovered  by the film academies in Soviet Russia. I guessed that it would be easy for this technique to be discovered from experiementation, and that this play would have a 'this is what actually happened' story.
Indeed, the play suggested that Motl had discovered montage. I will say though, that what he did discover was in the end, technically, an example of continuity editing. You could say that the process of creating a montage and continuity is the same, i.e. you cut up film reels and stick them together, though the same can be said for any process of editing. Yet montage is meant to show a number of shots that have no obvious but metaphorical connection. The end result of Motl and Anna's experiments was three different shots stuck together, so that the plot that was going on would continue to make sense, which is continuity editing.
Yet, despite all these references to film in the first act, by the second act the play had changed focus to the character's relationships. To me the play skims over a number of things, including the aspect of film. There is a moment during Act 2 where the villagers are filming a scene, and instead of showing us the process of shooting, we have to watch Motl put up with Jacob persistantly giving suggestions.
An article in the digital programme discussed how many of Hollywood's greatest contributors were Jewish immigrants, e.g. Louis B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn. The post show talk also emphasised this and Hytner described how Jews were running away from their origins, and yet they were making Jewish films in Hollywood. This theme was addressed briefly in the play as was Motl's desire to escape. Yet the play changed focus again, dramatically, and this reason to go was forgotten.
The romantic plot between Motl and Anya felt pointless in the end. This was because the play felt a bit too sentimental. During the final scenes of the play there were a few dark twists in the plot that did not seem to have a great impact. The play seemed forgiving, no matter how dark it went. I am fine with plays like this, indeed the last few seconds of the production felt heartwarming. But I was expecting a play about the early days of film, and how it affected a small community of Jews.
This was almost adressed during a scene where the villagers watched a screening of Motl's first film and were asked what they thought of it. Here they were shown as a group of people that have excluded themselves from the rest of the world, and are new to this form of technology. Yet the delivery of this scene made them appear stereotypes to me, to the point where the scene felt tiresome. It did feel as if I was watching Fiddler on the Roof.
But what about the main characters? Despite my reservations, the chemistry between Motl and Anna did feel believable and was quite charming to watch. I did feel that Damien Molony was overacting Motl's frustrations towards Jacob. Most of the time Jacob was making suggestions that we can see in films today. Whether Motl had known that these techniques existed is another subject, but I still felt that Damien should have calmed down. To me Antony Sher was the best actor in this production. Hytner did say that the play was written for him, and for the most part I do agree with him. Although I was half expecting Sher to start singing If I were a rich man, his character did bring a personal side to the play, and Antony did a very good job playing this.
The set was pretty simple for a production that was being performed on a Proscenium stage. The action took place within Motl's family house, behined which we see a flat piece set of the village. Occasionally, the set was rearranged to reveal what seems to be a modern film set. There were hints that the elder Motl was putting his story on film, but once again the play never expanded upon it. Elsewhere a lot of the production elements, including costumes and lighting, were only used to establish this one simple setting within Motl's reisdence. I wondered whether this play would have been more suited to the Cottesloe Theatre. I did notice that the backdrop was been used to display projections to the audience, which I will discuss in a moment, but I did think that a smaller stage would have established the intimacy of the setting.
Lately the National Theatre has been trying to make its Live screenings more accessible and easier to watch. A clever addition they made to this screening was during projections I mentioned, where the screening would cut away from the action and show the projections themselves for us in the cinemas to see. The audio from the stage would remain so that we could still hear what was being said. It was a pleasure to watch the cast members take part in these films, which were produced as realistically as possible using the green backdrop to help create the backdrops during post production
Also for the first time the screening included a post show talk with  the playwright, Nicholas Wright, the  director, Nicholas Hytner, and film critic for the Observer, Jason Solomans. Those watching the play from the cinemas could also send in questions via email, facebook and twitter. There was even one jovial comment comparing Antony Sher to Borat. In response to the recent emphasis on silent film in cinema, Hytner believed that there was certainly something in the air. Wright recounted how during the rehearsals the cast would watch a good number of silent films in order to familiarise themselves with what they were tackling.
Solomans claimed that this play was like watching a film in 3D, only with out the glasses. I'd say that this was a good attempt at adressing film through a play. Yet the story had too many elements going on, many of which were only looked at for a short time. Also, a lot of the characters were shown as caricatures, though the main actors did produce some commenable performances. The overall devotion of Nicholas Wright towards film makes Travelling Light worth seeing at a Restricted View, but nothing more.