2,960 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 18, 2019 10:08:03 GMT
I wonder if I'm just going off theatre right now. Or at least a certain sort of important (I suppose) and earnest (so it seems to me) theatre. I haven't been excited by many plays in London recently. I have really enjoyed some plays here in the North West (I went to a scratch night in a Liverpool bar a couple of weeks ago that was fantastic) but the last London thing that really left me buzzing - in the way I used to from a music gig - was Wolfie. I think London theatre needs new voices with more varied life experiences behind them, maybe - also, with so much TV being made now the emerging talent is quickly snapped up for that.
|
|
1,846 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 18, 2019 10:19:55 GMT
An extremely earnest production, many moral and intricate theological arguments and how your personal opinions and values are a two edged sword.
Juliet Stevenson was spellbinding, after the interval I was transfixed as my values are closer to Doctor Wolff and would have likely acted similarly and was getting quite internally agitated as the evening progressed especially in the filmed scene.
A play that requires concentration as the understandable blind casting messes with your internalised prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 19, 2019 10:26:56 GMT
An extremely earnest production, many moral and intricate theological arguments and how your personal opinions and values are a two edged sword. Juliet Stevenson was spellbinding, after the interval I was transfixed as my values are closer to Doctor Wolff and would have likely acted similarly and was getting quite internally agitated as the evening progressed especially in the filmed scene. A play that requires concentration as the understandable blind casting messes with your internalised prejudices. I think this most accurately describes how I felt about this play. I saw it on Friday and it has pretty much taken until today to get my thoughts together about it. I have booked to see it again because the best bits are, as Neil says, spellbinding. I came out furious though and convinced it was one of the worst things I had ever seen, shouting "this is what people who read The Telegraph think it says in The Guardian!" but having reflected, I am sad to say that I think it might just be my internalised prejudices speaking. I agree with the person who said that they were aware of the way that the writing was being used to make you think in a certain way, and this didn't flow as much as it could. It felt a bit like an exercise in audience manipulation at times.
As I saw it in previews, I did think it needed quite a lot of work. When I was waiting at the bus stop afterwards Naomi Wirthner came to the same stop with her friends and was saying that there are a lot of daily rewrites, so I'll be interested to see how it evolves.
I agree that I would have done and said as Prof Wolff did and that's uncomfortable viewing!
Juliet Stephenson is just excellent and she was responsible for all the best parts. Ria Zmitrowicz is also great, but there are some strange performances from other people and I felt there was a lot of 'acting' going on. Again I am curious to see how this evolves and I am very interested to read the reviews!
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 20, 2019 9:05:10 GMT
When I saw in (in previews as well) one of the actors seemed to be wearing an earpiece so possibly a result of lots of last minute rewrites.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 20, 2019 9:48:51 GMT
I couldn't get into 'Europe' at the Donmar at all - though many people I respect loved it. I wouldn't hold too much store by Europe. It was a head scratcher, but some seemed to almost will it to be more relevant and prophetic of the current times than it could be. The broader points held up but at 25-years distance even those weren't terribly insightful. IMO!
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 20, 2019 13:43:52 GMT
There’s an interesting discussion with Robert Icke about this play on Front Row from Monday (19th Aug). Available as a podcast and the interview starts at 10mins 52.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 20, 2019 19:49:24 GMT
There’s an interesting discussion with Robert Icke about this play on Front Row from Monday (19th Aug). Available as a podcast and the interview starts at 10mins 52. A link please? If it’s allowed in here.
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 20, 2019 20:26:06 GMT
There’s an interesting discussion with Robert Icke about this play on Front Row from Monday (19th Aug). Available as a podcast and the interview starts at 10mins 52. A link please? If it’s allowed in here. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0007qc3
|
|
1,016 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 21, 2019 8:45:11 GMT
When I saw in (in previews as well) one of the actors seemed to be wearing an earpiece so possibly a result of lots of last minute rewrites. If it's who I'm thinking of, I believe it was a hearing aid. But perhaps I'm wrong!
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 21, 2019 10:14:26 GMT
Seems to be 4 and 5 star reviews for this
Seeing it tonight!
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2019 10:19:27 GMT
Well I thought this was pretty astonishing. Vintage Icke, giving relatively unfussy staging and allowing the play to do the talking, building on seemingly simple yet endlessly morally complex premise with arguments and situations wound so tight I almost couldn't bear it. At the interval I knew I was loving the play, but was a bit unsure about the production and the use of actors very specifically not having the same physical attributes as the characters they were playing. {Spoiler - click to view} But then the use of these same actors in the second half, now embodying different characters who DO share their physical attributes and arguing from those positions ultimately adds another layer - did we misread the situation because of our biases? Or do their own biases mean that they can't see the version that we saw that was in its own way without bias, or at least without the bias they claim was there?
And then Icke layers the whole thing with the modern internet age / public outrage / trial by twitter stuff which could apply to almost anything in the news today. So all the age old philosophical questions of science vs religion, unconcious bias, truth as an absolute good (or not), whether one should apologise for making a decision that was taken deliberately and in consideration of the facts but in hindsight had the worst outcome etc. are put into this pressure cooker by online scrutiny and accountability. Plot specifics gradually reveal themselves and {Spoiler - click to view} there's a neat callback in the final moments that throws the opening 30 seconds into stark relief but for me it was about the journey and Juliet Stevenson's wonderful and committed central performance and the fascinating character she embodies. A real mentally invigorating treat. Don't go alone - you'll need someone to chew it all over with afterwards!
|
|
851 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Aug 21, 2019 10:43:02 GMT
Five stars from the Telegraph and the Guardian; Billington is an Icke-sceptic, so his praise carries more weight than usual. Can't wait till I see this tomorrow.
|
|
1,187 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 21, 2019 10:58:03 GMT
Well I thought this was pretty astonishing. Vintage Icke, giving relatively unfussy staging and allowing the play to do the talking, building on seemingly simple yet endlessly morally complex premise with arguments and situations wound so tight I almost couldn't bear it. Oh there sooooo should have been spoiler tags in this post. Thanks for ruining some key bits for me/us ;(
|
|
|
Post by jennapatchell on Aug 21, 2019 10:59:17 GMT
Well this one does sound interesting. After reading Billington's review I have booked for a couple weeks time.
|
|
393 posts
|
Post by altamont on Aug 21, 2019 11:23:53 GMT
I would advise anyone going to see this to avoid reviews and the comments from Harry above - there are surprises in this astonishing production that it is much better to discover for yourself rather than being told about in advance.
Of course, that could apply to many plays, but in my opinion, it is especially true here
|
|
18,802 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 21, 2019 11:27:13 GMT
Spoiler tags added. You can learn how to use spoiler tags in FAQ No. 10 here www.theatreboard.co.uk/post/256470/threadIf the technology defeats you please start your post with CONTAINS SPOILERS so that people can at least choose to skip reading it. Thanks
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2019 11:33:36 GMT
Well I thought this was pretty astonishing. Vintage Icke, giving relatively unfussy staging and allowing the play to do the talking, building on seemingly simple yet endlessly morally complex premise with arguments and situations wound so tight I almost couldn't bear it. Oh there sooooo should have been spoiler tags in this post. Thanks for ruining some key bits for me/us ;( I think (hope) when you see the show you will understand why I didn't feel the need to spoiler tag those things. Particularly the first thing that has since been tagged was something that I just found interesting and clever about the cast character doubling rather than any sort of "reveal". But I accept the reprimand and apologise if your experience of the play is now dampened - I really just wanted to encourage people to go and experience it.
|
|
1,846 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 21, 2019 11:35:07 GMT
Agree with altamont about going in blind, having read most of the reviews and the nature of the play any discussion is likely to descend into spoilers and some of the reviews definitely gave away a bit too much.
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2019 11:40:19 GMT
I would advise anyone going to see this to avoid reviews and the comments from Harry above - there are surprises in this astonishing production that it is much better to discover for yourself rather than being told about in advance. Of course, that could apply to many plays, but in my opinion, it is especially true here Fair enough. I suppose my reasoning is that I didn't feel I "revealed" more about the show than the reviewers would (and since have) but I also get that some people will come here having decided to not read professional reviews so sorry if people feel I've ruined it for them.
|
|
2,960 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 21, 2019 11:48:53 GMT
The reviews I've read (Evening Standard etc) are very spoilery.
|
|
1,115 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 21, 2019 13:08:48 GMT
The reviews I've read (Evening Standard etc) are very spoilery. I agree. I would have liked to go into this one knowing very little but the standard broke it right down and explained changes from the original source material.
|
|
2,960 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 21, 2019 13:40:16 GMT
I would have liked to go into this one knowing very little Yes, especially as I suspect the production derives a lot of its power from the very things the review reveals. Oh well - I had to cancel my trip last week so probably won't get to see it in London but who knows, with those reviews it might tour like Mary Stuart or make it to TV like Hamlet.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 21, 2019 21:35:37 GMT
I thought this was superb! Very thought provoking and moving.
|
|
1,115 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 21, 2019 23:19:23 GMT
I'm having to miss next Tuesday's performance as I forgot I'm going to the cricket. First time! It was a £5 young person ticket so it's unlikely I'll be able to switch it. Gutted to miss this! I will be returning it of course.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 10:38:50 GMT
I wonder if I'm just going off theatre right now. Or at least a certain sort of important (I suppose) and earnest (so it seems to me) theatre. I couldn't get into 'Europe' at the Donmar at all - though many people I respect loved it. And I felt the same about this - I just was too aware of all the trickiness and calculation of it. Plus that first act went on forever. And that blasted drum. But it may be me. A friend who was at the same performance last night loved it and was in tears at the end. I want something else. Maybe I need a holiday. I've seen far too many productions recently that can be best described as "timely" or "relevant". I know theatre can be an important part of responding to the way the world is, especially as it can react much more quickly than film or TV, but with the way the world is right now, I'd really rather have more of a balance between relevant plays and escapist plays, rather than a majority of one and Present Laughter valiantly working hard to represent t'other practically all by itself.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 22, 2019 10:43:20 GMT
Baemax, I think you've articulated what I was feeling well. I've overdosed on relevance and starkness for now and am yearning for something that is funny, beautiful or transporting.
I know everything is messed up. Do I want to see that played out over and over again? Not every theatre trip.
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 22, 2019 11:11:35 GMT
Baemax, I think you've articulated what I was feeling well. I've overdosed on relevance and starkness for now and am yearning for something that is funny, beautiful or transporting. I know everything is messed up. Do I want to see that played out over and over again? Not every theatre trip. This is also what I have been thinking, so much is a 're imagining for present time'. Sometimes I just want to see a play as written and be transported. I felt that The Doctor had just enough really beautiful scenes to save it, but as I said above I did leave the theatre furious so...
|
|
1,002 posts
|
Post by David J on Aug 22, 2019 11:44:54 GMT
I have an issue with what I call "issue plays" that come out these days. Plays where perhaps watching the first 10 minutes its as if the playwright is telling me "my play is about racism/sexism/current politics" or whatever is trending. It's less about characters and more about having them stop to perhaps have a rant about what they believe. It's more about pigeon-holing a story around this one issue.
I've seen some Chekhov and Ibsen plays in recent years, and I keep feeling there's something about their writing that springs out to me. Something I wish there was more of these days. Sure their plays can be political or have some issue around them, but they're brought up more subtly. It's more about the individual characters and their stories during which you're piecing together what they're about, rather than them saying outright to us I'm this or that and I think so and so.
Downstate springs to mind. Yes the blurb makes it clear its about paedophiles but I was taken aback by how the issue was left on the back burner and let the characters and story flourish. The same for Sweat which felt better written than Europe. It's why these two plays will be high on my best of 2019 list
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 22, 2019 12:40:52 GMT
Off to see Measure for Measure at RSC this evening, the original #metoo play. So I agree with you, David, too much ‘preaching’ and not enough character or plot doing the work.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Aug 24, 2019 17:35:35 GMT
Well deserving of the excellent reviews with great character work and it being really well paced. Very much a play of ideas and it’s easy to let it tip over into one-sidedness but it never does, thanks to an adaptation that gives those competing ideas time to breathe and be justified. Directing is often rewarded for being more showy, as director’s work with actors is often too transparent for people to see. Here, more overt theatricality is stripped back to reveal what is always the reason that directing works, that aforementioned work with actors. Icke, like his European descendants, is great at shifting between both the surface and the hidden. This interplay of style and substance is a chimera (the biological meaning, not the mythical one). The two are part of the same organism and interact, one being more obvious than the the other at different times (is that literal or figurative? Not sure). Anyway, it’s good to see that sort of organic directing here. One question - bit spoilery. {Spoiler - click to view} There’s a clear difference in the way that gender and race are performed. With gender it is overt, voice and posture (I was particularly drawn to the conflicting gender indicators from Ria Zmitrowicz). With race, there is no change, the revelations are unexpected. This is clearly deliberate but why? Is the suggestion that our reactions to race sit deeper? Not sure. Any ideas?
|
|