Personally i was impressed with the set only one of the doors looked slightly wonky but i'll not gripe at Chris for that - hanging a door is difficult at the best of times in something solid! Probably why i prefer acting to infer a doorway rather than physically building a doorway. A good acting performance all the same.
To add to what seems more of a technical review, I must say that I thought the acting was excellent, particularly the smaller roles. I pick out Silvestre as Nils Kr?gstad for example. Partly this is because, on odd occasions, I had difficulty in believing the behaviour of the two leads. I suspect though that the fault may lie more in the script.
Overall, I must admit that I was more than pleasantly surprised as to how much I enjoyed watching it. Well done to all.
I was really impressed with Nora Helmer. I found her convincing nearly all the time and felt her energy and committment was carrying the play a hell of a lot of the time. I agree with Technical Aside that Nils Kr?gstad was also very good. I had a little trouble with Dr Rank, the slightly monotonic characater was amusing for a while but then I felt some of his later scenes demanded a sincerity that didn't come through so well with the slightly 2D comedic character.
I liked the layout of the set a lot and didn't have trouble seeing the actors except when they sat down on the chaise longe. The gaps between set and side of stage and by doors were really offputting since you could see people moving backstage.
On a different note, I disagree with the Gnome and Ruth's description of Nora as reckless. The decision to take the loan was perhaps a little risky but was done out of desparation and she seemed to be aware of the potential risks and consequences involved. Her inability to deal with the situation stemmed from the way that she was expected to fill a very rigid childlike role and the way that role forbade her from dealing with the adult difficulties she faced. What does anybody else think?
You'd have been more unhappy with what "the revolving gnome" originally wanted to write about Nora in the story. I toned him down!
Also, where were you sitting in the audience? The people sat towards the back of the unraised portion of the audience were stood up or kneeling on their chairs the whole way as it was impossible to see. Personally I had quite a good view (front row of the raised section), but we felt the review should reflect that significant portions of the audience did not.
Unfortunately the arrangement of the seating was not finalized until opening night. I assumed the raised section would be significantly raised not just a little bit to allow people to really look into the house, but it just one more technical element of this play that frustrated me as a director. I do apologize for everyone who had trouble seeing!
I'd also be interested to know what he originally wanted to write about Nora...
The concert hall is built around a stage which leads to problems when productions take place on the concert hall floor. A lecture theatre or the great hall which has racked seating would be a much better venue for a production of this sort of but obviously leads to other problems.
With the exception of the Friday night, when we had nearly double the number of people of other nights, nearly everyone had a good view.
As for the actors they were all brilliant at the parts they were given (some parts were easier to work with than others), and the 'techies' particuarly thought Silvestre Pinho (playing Krogstad) made a lot of his part.
I often wonder why plays dont just use the stage. The reason I usually hear in the past was the director or producer "want to take the action to the audience" the seats are then put further back....
That said, I thought this play was really good, although she people sat on the infamous-aforementioned-seating then they did disappear below the front row of audience. and i was on the raised area (although I am not that tall....), but anyway, the acting was generally good to very good. it was quite gripping really. imho