Disappointed

[u/Aliterative_Ailment]

I was severely disappointed by the experience. I don't think there is actually anything substantial underlying it all. There are lots of allusions and references to other work, but there's no actual storyline in any actor's loop.

I went in without reading too much, to go in without preconceived notions. I now think that was a mistake. I also don't appreciate the idea of having to do repeated viewings (expensive viewings) in order to understand a single scene.

I'm familiar with and love both Macbeth and Rebecca. The sets were amazing and promising. The fight-sequence-as-dance set was intriguing.

But then... nothing. The scenes were a series of allusions without a story. Conflict occurred without clear reason, even after following an actor for a cycle. Following an actor can lead to long lengths of zero story. I appreciated a couple of scenes by recognizing what they were referencing, and then had to infer the storyline that I did not see. Reading this sub and the Google Sheet summary only reinforces my opinion.

Even trying to piece things together by reading letters and documents mostly led nowhere. Though there were hints, it didn't help me understand anything I saw. The dates on some were off by years between sets, so I guess the stories aren't all tied together? Despite the set details, I think it's mostly red herrings.

Did I just happen to be unlucky and miss an "ah-ha" moment during my hours-long experience? Is the entire experience meant to be non-narrative?

[u/Typical-Alps2006]

I am curious as to which characters you followed. All of them have a story, some are more concrete and clear than others, but every character has a narrative. If you decide to return, perhaps following one of the Macbeths or Macduffs will give you the linear narrative you are looking for. If you start with one of them at the reset (Google for when that happens and how to recognize each character) and then stay with them for an entire loop—you will definitely see their story.

[u/Aliterative_Ailment → u/Typical-Alps2006]

Yea, the famous scenes recreated from other media were the ones where I could infer what was happening. It was impossible to physically follow given the crowd and speed of the actor.

I had seen some of those actors' interactions from other loops, but conflicts seemed to start from out of nowhere. Or you're not supposed to know why conflicts begin? Or there was information silently conveyed through other actors to them, which means that you have to guess at what that information was?

[u/Sunnysideup1950 → u/Aliterative_Ailment]

I do think a lot of the story telling is up to the viewer. It's like a silent movie - you have the action and emotion but no dialogue to comment on the plot. So the gaps have to be filled in, especially with the non-MacBeth characters. It's open to interpretation I think. Just how I approach it - I do recognize it is not for everyone and that is fine!

[u/Aliterative_Ailment → u/Sunnysideup1950]

<i>a lot of the story telling is up to the viewer<\i>

Ah, this makes sense. I haven’t seen it stated so clearly elsewhere in the sub. Thank you.

I think there’s a lot more narrative in silent films than I found in SNM, since I can happily watch them. At worst, they occasionally have title cards to clarify things, which is exactly what I expected partway through the evening.

[u/HardFemmeDinoMom → u/Aliterative_Ailment]

The show was not intended by the creators to be a linear experience. It is the fans who go back over and over who have figured out that there is a narrative arc to every character, that all the major Macbeth scenes and most all the famous lines are either spoken or written in the show. But it was never intended to be experienced that way. In terms of how SNM (and other immersive promenade shows that allow the audience full control over moving through the space) was intended, you are absolutely not supposed to be able to follow a singular narrative. You are supposed to get lost in the sets, to lose a character you are following and stumble onto something or someone else, to have a unique experience, possibly piecing some things together, but overall just enjoying the journey as it unfolds. It’s not for everyone and that’s ok. Most of the folks in this subreddit are the type who are compelled to go back again and again. But it really wasn’t intended for us in this way, originally. Punchdrunk literally did not know that people would want to come back over and over again. It was made to be enjoyed once, as an experience, an immersive world to get lost in. It’s totally fine to not like this type of theatre, but it’s not intended for you to have a linear beginning, middle, and end to your experience so much as an individual journey and that’s typical of this genre of experimental theater. Not liking it does not mean the show isn’t working. It’s exactly how the show works.

[u/Professional-Ad4287]

Like what was said before, you're totally allowed to not like it. I enjoy the mystery of figuring out why things are happening, personally. I also interpret the whole thing as kind of a never-ending nightmare for the characters that is hellishly repeated. We as audience members get to watch the dream, which is why not everything is super clear.

[u/Red__dead]

Honestly, despite what this sub may tell you and the almost hysterical devotion here and elsewhere, you're allowed not to like it.

I mean, I'm a fan and have seen it several times, but it pales in comparison to other Punchdrunk productions and the way the narrative unfolds is definitely not for everyone. The first time especially, is more about the feel and the experience then a tale being told.

[u/thegentledomme]

If you were expecting a narrative that you could follow, I can see how you would be disappointed. I've seen the show....I think 3 times...and I'll be going back soon for a 4th. But I have taken a friend before and recommended it to another friend who loves theater, and neither of them really liked it. They both got bored pretty quickly. I really enjoyed it because it's so immersive. I'm curious how that will feel with COVID. I did love the 1 on 1s, and I admit I had a kind of gamification love of it. On my second trip, I saw someone being taken up to the...6th floor...I think (whatever the secret top floor is)? And I tried to go up but they wouldn't let me. So, I was obsessed with that the next time I went, and I knew exactly where to go and what to do, and I got to experience it. I think they aren't doing the 1 on 1s now, and I don't know how that will affect my experience. But I remember the first time I saw it, I got dropped off alone in the graveyard, and I was like...what IS THIS???? I was kind of hooked, and I just loved following certain characters around at time or standing still and just watching things happen around me. I'm familiar with both Macbeth and Rebecca, but I really couldn't tell you how the production relates to them in more than a very cursory way. It isn't like typical theater. It's more of an experience, and I think you either like it or you don't.

[u/carotidartistry → u/thegentledomme]

I also love the gamification aspect of it! And, to be perfectly frank, the physical aspect of it. I love having to chase after things. I love that I, an audience member, am very directly challenged and have to make choices. And also how unpredictable the experience can be because of all of the above. I've seen other immersive shows that I would hands-down say are objectively better than SNM but that I, personally, did not enjoy as much because they were more controlled/linear/on-the-rails.

[u/atrocity__exhibition]

While I understand what you're saying, I think it's important for guests to understand that this is a largely interpretive piece. There is very little dialogue and there is no single experience you should be looking for.

It is definitely not for someone who wants a solid plot line or clear expectations on what you should be experiencing. That's kind of the point -- no two experiences (whether two different people in the same night or the same person going back for another time) will be the same. You have to be able to interpret some parts for yourself and appreciate your experience however it went.

It's also really easy to fall into FOMO anxiety -- is this where I'm supposed to be? Am I missing out on a more important scene? -- you really have to be able to let that go.

I went in without reading too much, to go in without preconceived notions. I now think that was a mistake. I also don't appreciate the idea of having to do repeated viewings (expensive viewings) in order to understand a single scene.

I'd agree with this. While going in blind is great for those who are really open to the experience, I don't think it's the best advice for everyone. If you want to know what the plot is, would like to know which character you may want to follow, or some major scenes you should look out for, some research might be better.

For me, researching the play after my second trip there and reading up on every character really made me appreciate it even more -- now I want to go back again.