Sign in with FacebookElizabeth's Reviews > Arcadia
Arcadia
by Tom Stoppard
by Tom Stoppard
Elizabeth's review
bookshelves: 2008, in-by-of-england, in-theater, reviewed
Nov 27, 08
bookshelves: 2008, in-by-of-england, in-theater, reviewed
Read in November, 2008, read count: 1
Tom Stoppard is a brilliant man. He has a wonderful way of talking about complexities in simple terms, as with the coin toss in Rosencrantz Guildenstern Are Dead and in Arcadia with the politics of academic publishing, historical research, Romanticism, the Newtonian system, and Nature, with a capital N. It does cross the line though. For example, I'm not sure that everyone is familiar with Hobbes's opinion of geometry (although I may be wrong) and I am not sure that the references to Horace Walpole and The Mysteries of Udolpho won't be distracting. But I suppose would be like watching Shakespeare in Love without knowing Romeo and Juliet. You can still enjoy it, but many of the better jokes will be lost.
Maybe Arcadia isn't meant to please the rather limited group of theater-goers interested in the transition from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries in England and the socio-philosophical debates that went on, transforming the physical landscape, not just ideas. Perhaps these unknown theater-goers are more interested in the academics who publish wildly, hoping to become the first discover that Lord Byron slept here! Stoppard provides both in this play. It was published soon after Possession, which while it covered a different period/topic (Victorian poets), it also asked the questions about what we can learn from history and what the academic world might do to foster its own agenda. What does get lost in history?
I'd like to see this play performed, which is not always the case with plays that I read. I found certain aspects of the play abbreviated. The actors would be able to fill in some gaps, that I think deserve more attention.
Maybe Arcadia isn't meant to please the rather limited group of theater-goers interested in the transition from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries in England and the socio-philosophical debates that went on, transforming the physical landscape, not just ideas. Perhaps these unknown theater-goers are more interested in the academics who publish wildly, hoping to become the first discover that Lord Byron slept here! Stoppard provides both in this play. It was published soon after Possession, which while it covered a different period/topic (Victorian poets), it also asked the questions about what we can learn from history and what the academic world might do to foster its own agenda. What does get lost in history?
I'd like to see this play performed, which is not always the case with plays that I read. I found certain aspects of the play abbreviated. The actors would be able to fill in some gaps, that I think deserve more attention.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Arcadia.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-19 of 19) (19 new)
date
newest »
newest »
David wrote: "Elizabeth writes: "I'd like to see this play performed ..."I saw the play a few weeks ago. It was unsatisfying. I didn't care about the characters, or academic obsession, or where Byron slept. ..."
Did you see the production that's running currently in New York? I'm really sorry to hear that. It reads wonderfully but I can tell a great deal could be added with a production.
David wrote: "Yes, on Broadway. My opinion seems to be in the minority."Hm. I have a friend seeing it this week. I'll have to ask her opinion. Maybe you're not the only one.
I've seen it in production several times. The best one I ever saw was in a small, intimate Elizabethan style theatre in DC where I watched from a balcony. Ambiance certainly helps but nonetheless. If it appeared to be about where Byron slept then the actors did something wrong. I cared very much about Hannah and Thomasina and Septimus. It's the wanting to know that makes us matter is still among the best things that anyone has ever said ever- that's what all the Byron and the math and everything in the play is really about, and if actors don't convey that, well then EPIC FAIL on them for wasting this material. I have heard that Billy Crudup totally overplays Bernard so I can see how him setting a wrong tone (and your Bernard will set the tone) could ruin stuff.If it works, that end should make you bawl your eyes out. I don't want to give it away for anyone who reads this and hasn't seen it, but OMG. I die! Every time. Even in print.
Rufus Sewell was in the original production (I think). I would expect that to have been brilliant. I'm not much of a fan of Billy Crudup, although I liked him on West Wing.
Billy Crudup went on the West Wing? How did I miss this episode? I knew he dated Mary-Louise Parker for a bit and left her when she was 7 months pregnant (oh yeah, he's classy like that) but I didn't realize he was on the show too.
I think that was Steven Culp, no?: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191688/(I juust happen to be rewatching the fourth season right now.)
Kelly wrote: "I think that was Steven Culp, no?: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0191688/(I juust happen to be rewatching the fourth season right now.)"
I've got them totally mixed up!
Ha, good! Billy Crudup deserves to be mixed up with as many people as possible. I say this based on tons of evidence from US Weekly and the fact that I do not think he is a good actor.... I am very generous in my judgments this evening.
Elizabeth wrote: "Rufus Sewell was in the original production (I think). I would expect that to have been brilliant. I'm not much of a fan of Billy Crudup, although I liked him on West Wing."I haven't seen him in much, but I really can't imagine Billy Crudup in tht part.
I've seen it performed a couple times, but still don't quite get it. You probably understand it better from reading it. I've also seen a few other Stoppard, like his version of Chekhov's Seagull--oh, and India Ink. The others held together better, but Arcadia may be the grandest. These were all London performances, the luxury side of some pretty hard Latin translating at the British Library.
Alan wrote: "I've seen it performed a couple times, but still don't quite get it. You probably understand it better from reading it. I've also seen a few other Stoppard, like his version of Chekhov's Seagull-..."Arcadia in London? It wasn't the Rufus Sewell performance was it? I may have to faint away.
It was at Haymarket, Her Majesty's I think. Can't recall the director. I do recall conversing with a smart though puzzled Cambridge prof who'd written a survey of English Lit I had on my shelf. Maybe saw it there on successive visits, same production probably.
Alan wrote: "It was at Haymarket, Her Majesty's I think. Can't recall the director. I do recall conversing with a smart though puzzled Cambridge prof who'd written a survey of English Lit I had on my shelf. M..."By the way, I saw you said Maybe I could have read one less book by Conrad somewhere. My grad school friend wrote his thesis on Nostromo, which the typist mispelled Nostormo throughout the 364 pp, back before computers and spellcheck. And my friend never noticed until it was bound. I had also rattled his cage since I read Russian: I said Conrad uses slavic participles (and he does). Conrad's another example--along with Steinbeck and Sandburg--of being a great writer without being a good writer. In all three cases, it's their subjects, which are unprecedented.
Alan wrote: "Alan wrote: "It was at Haymarket, Her Majesty's I think. Can't recall the director. I do recall conversing with a smart though puzzled Cambridge prof who'd written a survey of English Lit I had on..."I think that was the Ulysses review, where I suggested the modern library greatest books of the 20th century list could have had fewer books by Conrad and more books by women. But I do like Conrad.
Your story about your poor friend is hysterical.
Oh, I finally figured out Rufus Sewell is not a director, but an actor--and yes, his face seems vaguely familiar from Arcadia. But my memory for faces is poor. And for actors or actresses. I'm hopeless at discussing films, for that very reason.
I saw the play a few weeks ago. It was unsatisfying. I didn't care about the characters, or academic obsession, or where Byron slept. It seems to run on too long. After all the positive buzz, I expected better.