These are reviews by our Bronze group Critics’ Circle from Local Secondary School pupils.

This is a rather innovative piece- do not adjust your screen: for Emma Winter’s review she did a collage of a collection of images that fitted in with the titles of  war and peace. She collaged this in a Ying and Yang shape. 

Review by Mille Turner

war and Peace Part II

One thousand three hundred and fifteen pages, twelve chapters and size 8 font, War and peace was not on my list of things to read, nor was I particularly enthralled by the thought of a stage performance six hours long. However my thoughts were soon changed as I found myself entirely living and breathing every moment of the play at Nottingham Playhouse.

  Set in the early 19th century Tolstoy’s epic, adapted for the Shared Experience Theatre Company by Helen Edmundson, tells the story of Russian society during the Napoleonic Era.  I have seen some of Shared Experience’s performances before and have marveled at the intricacy and energy of their work but could they make War and peace appeal to me? Most defiantly! A mix of music, movement and good old speech which complemented each other had me not only enjoying myself but also understanding the plot!
  In such a play as this there is no way you cannot include a battle scene and although most companies would run scared at such a thought, Shared Experience seemed to have relished the idea, creating explosive scenes which made me feel as if I was there living the pain and fear. Their clever use of objects and their own bodies mixed with the smoke and music lead to an eerie silence in the theatre, which in my case was simply awe for their brilliance.
  Sitting on the front row I could observe the costumes and set close up and I was extremely impressed. The set in particular I thought to be extremely effective as its shiny surface reflected the actors almost mixing the boundaries between what was real and what was in people’s dreams as addressed in the play. The director Helen Edmundson also commented that the people during that particular era were very superficial and had rooms full of mirrors so in that way they wanted the stage to portray that mind set as well as giving the stage depth.
  The actors were faultless and how they remembered all those lines I will never know! Their commitment and thoroughness of acting was inspirational and although I feel I should have something negative to say towards the play there really is nothing I would change. A potentially mind numbingly boring night transformed into a sensational explosion of complete genius. A must see!

Sarah Coulson Redhill School

  On the 7th of February I went to watch the second part to War and Peace at Nottingham Playhouse  and I thought it was great. The play consisted of 15 actors : Richard Attlee, Marion Bailey, Geoffrey Beevers, Louise Ford, Theo Herdman, Barnaby Kay, Jeffery Kissoon, Des McAleer, Hywel Morgan, Sophie Roberts, Vinette Robinson, David Sturzaker, Simon Thorp, Katie Wimpenny and Jonathan Woolf. The original author of War and Peace was Leo Tolstoy who based many of his characters on real-life people known to Tolstoy himself for example Nikolai Rostov and Maria Bolkonskaya were based on Tolstoy’s own memories of his father and mother. The playwright was by Helen Edmundson and co-directed by Nancy Meckler and Polly Teale.

  War and Peace tells us about the impact of the Napoleonic Wars on the Russian nation over fifteen years. We see the lives of the aristocratic Andrei, Natasha, Pierre, Maria and their families. The story is set in many different locations for example from the battlefields to St Petersburg. At the end you will see that most of the characters are linked in some way. Also you will be amazed by how the 15 actors take on the roles of 72 characters between them.

  There are many themes to War and Peace. Obviously the first two are war and peace. The others in the play are relationships, family and friendship but the story mainly focuses on war. Each theme is brought out by the clever acting and the direction given to the actors. Also we can see that they have put a lot of effort in the way they move for example when they were showing them in a war scene, they did a part in slow motion which shows us that in sense it was emotional because they were fighting for their country and that it showed us the enormous amount of effort they put in for their country. The actors also put the themes across to the audience through their voice, facial expressions and the way they held their body and their movements for example in the war scenes they shouted and held their body in a strong position.

 Also they created the set to match all the types of places within the play. The actual set that never changed was the mirrors around the side and top of the stage. The mirrors added more depth to the play as in the grand parts of the houses it made it seem bigger like they were in a traditional manor house and they also made it look like marble which was very common in those days. When in the war scenes they made the mirrors look dirty by putting like moss texture on them. There were parts that moved for example grand chairs and a piano were used in the manor houses and boxes and sheets were used in the war scenes these props made the places seem more realistic.

  The actors within the play were great and I couldn’t really choose who was the best in the play. Each actor was good in their own way because they all put and gave a lot of emotion to the character, they all were good when switching to different characters and played them all in a different way, the way they used different accents were good e.g. French to Russian and also they made you believe that they were the characters they were portraying like you could imagine that is how they would have acted.

  Well my favourite part in the play was when they did the war scenes. The reason why is because they didn’t use any swords but used the chairs and a piece of white cloth. I thought that was a good idea because normally in a war scene you would expect them to use swords and guns. Also they used their voices and they used a red flag which kind of resembled pain and blood. Also I liked how you saw the different relationships develop within the second act. It was like the characters linked at the end. Well I don’t think there were any weak moments within the play.

  Nancy Meckler and Polly Teale I think really put across the story and the themes well. When watching the play you got the feeling of what it was like in the Napoleonic war on Russia and they made you feel like that by making the characters really believable and choosing the right actors for those specific characters, through the movements of characters, through the set and they have really thought of how the play would make the audience feel and how it will make us think about the real life of the people in Russia. I don’t think there could have been anything done differently because I believe that it was cleverly put together and it seemed like they spent hours thinking about each little part of the play.

  Over all I thought the play was really good and it was cleverly put together. I thought all the actors were really good and the set was really different to what I have seen before. I would defiantly go and see another play by shared experience and the same directors. If I had the chance to I would watch it all over again. 

  Sarah Coulson  

Review of War and Peace: Part 2

Critics Circle viewed War and Peace Part 2 on Thursday 7th February, this was the second half of the play originally written by Tolstoy, adapted by Helen Edmundson. War and Peace was co-directed by Nancy Meckler and Polly Teale, alongside a 15 member cast this managed to form a spectacular piece of engaging theatre forming two plays as the play spans over 20 years of Russian history during the time of the Napoleonic War. The focuses of the plays are how the social and political aspects of life are affected during the time of war for higher class aristocracy in particular in the early 19th century.
A few of the main themes in the 2nd section of the saga are of war, relationships, and superficial stereotypes of aristocracy. A great range of different relationships are presented in the play, there are several of love between a man and a woman for example Natasha Rostova and Andrey Bolkonsky who are engaged and how they alter over time to fall apart and rebuild themselves, for example Natasha Rostova shaming herself by attempting to marry Anatole Vassilitch Kuragin and breaking her engagement off to Andrei. Another form of relationship that is interesting to view throughout the play is between Maria Bolkonskaya and her father who is unpleasant and unappreciative of her loyalty, though try as she might to love him it becomes apparent to us through a dream sequence that she wishes him dead so she can be free.
The superficial stereotypes of aristocracy are enforced more so through the design of the set, there are three "portals" that manage to give depth to the stage and give the false impression of a larger and grander stage, much like a vast and ancient Russian palace. There are mirror frames on the walls of the set; this reinforces the superficial nature presented in the play of War and Peace. The set also managed to add to the atmosphere of the play, for example during dream sequences the reflective set made the mood of the scene all the more convincing and realistic.
The props were all used increasingly to the advantage of the piece, there were large mirrors used in several key scenes, and when not used were merely propped against the wall and appeared to blend in with the rest of the set. An example of when the mirrors are used to great affect is when Sonya, Natasha and there mother are at the opera and there Natasha meets Elena and her brother. The mirrors are used as windows and the several of the higher classed characters are upon the piano for the duration of the scene to physically symbolise the class differences within the aristocracy.
 Costumes were also well made and appropriate for the play, this included all period clothes and appearance, some of the costumes worked so well it was unclear that some of the cast had in fact had a character change. However there was one man in the play who was dressed in contemporary clothes, he symbolised someone of the modern day looking back on the war that once raged.
Overall the War and Peace Part 2 was an admirably well produced play, due to the excellent use of props and set alongside an impressionistic cast that all played their parts magnificently this staging of the book I feel has done justice to the Tolstoy’s epic novel.

Vicky Allcoat

War and Peace, Part 2- Review

  On the 7th February I went to see a drama company called Shared Experience put on a part 2 of a play called War and Peace. The original Author was Leo Tolstoy and the playwright was Helen Edmundson.
  The play focuses mainly on five or six characters and tells their story through their personalities and experiences, before, during and after the Napoleonic War. It starts in July 1805 when war is coming and the effects it will have on the aristocratic families. We then follow these families through the war years looking at the impact it has on these families and the society they live in.
  The main themes are family, love and friendship and how these can be strengthened, destroyed and torn apart by man’s greed and power. I think this was particularly well portrayed through the character of Pierre. We observed his life go from illegitimate but well educated playboy, who spent his time indulging himself, to, through unexpected inheritance, failing husband who struggles with his spiritual and moral existence. Through his experiences we see him discover life’s meaning, this is guided by cell mate Platòn Karataev. I thought this was brilliantly portrayed.
  The set design was very simple but very effective. The set didn’t change throughout the play and resembled a shabby expensive room. The cast used few props, a piano, a few frames, and some chairs. I found the set completely believable and found the way the cast improvised using the frames amazing, it really brought the scene to life, giving it the atmosphere required. There was also very effective use of the piano, especially in the scenes where they used it as a horse and cart.
  I thought the strongest actor was Pierre. But this performance I think appeared strongest due to the enormous talent of the rest of the cast. I thought all the actors were very believable. An example of this is when they played more than one part, the transformation from one character to the other was unnoticeable.
  I had lots of favourite moments but one that stood out for me was the scene when they went to the Opera. The reason for this was because they used the frames as opera boxes. This was very clever and looked really good.
  I did not think there were any weak moments in the play but I have to say that having seen part one of the play, part two was much more exciting and gripping. Contrasting this to part one which I found slow going.
  I have not read the original book of War and Peace or had any contact with it prior to this. I find it difficult to comment on the director’s interpretation, except to say I think she did a great job of turning an enormous book into such an exciting play.
  Overall, I really enjoyed this play because it was exiting and different to anything I’d seen before. It kept me interested throughout and the story line was quite easy to follow. I thought all the actors did a fantastic and were extremely believable. The costume and set were very good and this added to the whole atmosphere. I don’t think I would recommend this play to a young audience but defiantly to someone a bit older because they would understand it more. I think they would really enjoy seeing something a bit different. I would go and see something else by this director because I loves they way she used only a few props throughout the play. I think she made the story easy to follow and kept the audience interested. I really enjoyed War and Peace.
 
By Cissy Radford
The Minster School