2,203 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 14, 2019 8:42:34 GMT
I think it's wonderfully entertaining, and somewhat moving too, with great performances, but it isn't a classic political work destined to be remembered, primarily because it's more like a series of skits, than skillfully focused. I had great fun notwithstanding. Some spoilers follow. . . Unlike Bartlett's "Love Love Love," which had a laser-like 'right-wing' focus on taking down progressivism, this is a genuine 'left-wing' show, which addresses the difficulties of being progressive, and the difficulties of being the children of progressives, while affirming those underlying progressive values. What this work most resembles is an updated version Arnold Wesker's "Chicken Soup with Barley," in that it follows a left-wing family over 20 years of political drift (1997 - 2017) exactly as Wesker's play did (1936 - 1956). It is funnier than Wesker's play, as it is informed by skittish comic mischief from first to last, which is also why it is less successful as a whole than Wesker's play, lacking that play's focus. For instance, I laughed like a drain at an elongated skit about male and female naked selfies, performed masterfully by a precisely nasal, yet lazily sardonic Kate O'Flynn. In the casting, there is a nod to Flynn's previous National Theatre project, "A Taste of Honey," as again she finds her whole personality encroached upon and defined by an overweening mother, again played by Lesley Sharp, again on top ditzy comic form, but this time informed by greater wellsprings of genuine love and affection. For me, it's O'Flynn and Sharp who bring the most laughs, though all the excellent actors get their moments. As Marwood said, Morrissey's principal moment comes toward the end, when he is tasked with pretending that all this isn't light comedy, and delivers us a dominating dose of Weskerian progressively political punch. Like in the Wesker play, Morrissey's patriarch walks in his wife's political shadow, but not because he is tragically weak and unprincipled (as in the Wesker) but because he is humorously strong and over-principled. This once again tends towards making this a comic entertainment (and Morrissey is a natural bombastic comedian, as he showed us in Hangmen), rather than a state of the nation play. Still, the State of the Nation is very much under consideration if only because this show takes us from Blair to Brexit, and while it exposes life's endless compromises, it nonetheless makes a strong case for ever-trying to revive the ever-flailing corpse of progressivism. I enjoyed the whole cast, and outside of the three principals above, I especially Laurie Davidson's weak young amiable drug-addled sibling, whose role seemed somewhat informed by a very similar character played at the National by Rory Kinnear in "Last of the Haussmans," another State of the Nation play. This play may only be a blip in the history of political plays, rather than the "end of history" promised, but I found it the funniest and most entertaining of these types of shows, despite not being the most impactful. 4 stars from me. Really good write up, but just a three stars from me. One thing I noticed, the Royal Court audience loved the 'f***ing Blair' lines. Lapped them up which surprised me lots. Who voted for him?
|
|
3,019 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Rory on Aug 9, 2019 14:37:24 GMT
Saw yesterday's matinee and was thoroughly entertained and ultimately very moved. I thought it captured the dynamic of family life and relationships very well, and the sense of personal sacrifice required to live by your principles. Lovely performances throughout, a beautiful set by Grace Smart, wonderful music. When it ended, I could have sat watching them all for another two hours. Enjoyed reading this thread again after I'd seen it, particularly Steve's thoughts.
|
|
2,502 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 9, 2019 23:10:00 GMT
Was there tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. For me, the significant element was the sibling relationship - that to me rang absolutely true, and the love/hate relationship with people you've grown up with truly resonated with me. The play was less overtly political than I expected, dealing with ideas and principles rather than specifics of individual politicians (although this is touched on). In the end I was very moved by this, I thought the acting was superb and I'm glad it was played straight through.
Having said that... my husband was not impressed by this. He's an only child, so the sibling stuff didn't resonate with him. He felt that the parents were portrayed satirically in the early scenes, and he felt that the effort to give them weight later in the play was too late after the initial scenes. While he enjoyed the acting, he was very disappointed in the play.
I'm guessing a parent may have yet another perspective on this play. I suspect your attitude to this play may depend on your own personal history and experience.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Aug 11, 2019 7:18:05 GMT
Thought this was OK, agree the sibling relationship worked well and speaking from experience the preparing for the funeral scene was quite accurate. However I really don't want to see any more plays about whether or not feckless adult offspring will inherit a massive house from their parents. I guess the fact that many contemporary playwrights find this such a fascinating topic implies something about the backgrounds these playwrights come from.
|
|
576 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Aug 11, 2019 8:38:56 GMT
To be honest, I doubt any house featured in a Royal Court set would hold much value. They all seem to be dropping to bits.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 11, 2019 10:03:31 GMT
Went to see the last matinee yesterday. Reminded me a lot of The Last of Haussmanns but this is less funny, less sharp and less affecting, though it moved me in the end. The humour seemed a bit forced though, as if the playwright persists with this or that phase only for the sake of encouraging laughs, not to serve the story.. and it shows. Acting very good all around, especially Kate O’Flynn.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 11, 2019 12:07:20 GMT
fwiw, I thought the point about private ownership and property was well made for that generation of Labour people. I imagine you wouldn't have to dig too deep into Corbyn's allotment to find similar views, though you wouldn't even bother looking in Tony Blair's picture perfect kitchen garden.
Together with family ties, that generational contrast was the point of the play as I understood it.
|
|
80 posts
|
Post by missbabs on Aug 11, 2019 16:41:54 GMT
I'm afraid that I didn't think much of this at all. It just felt like something that I'd seen so many times before, and not nearly as well-executed.
I found the humour so obvious and forced (along with the rest of the story - I mean, calling their son Karl?) that at times it was like watching some awful ITV sitcom from the 90s with a few political references thrown in here and there.
No character felt real, merely cliches (gay son gone off the rails, ambitious daughter betraying her family's ideals)
I'm really surprised that this wasn't blasted by the critics as it's one of the weakest productions that I've seen in a while. It's a real shame as there so many talented people involved.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Aug 11, 2019 20:30:35 GMT
I found the humour so obvious and forced (along with the rest of the story - I mean, calling their son Karl?) that at times it was like watching some awful ITV sitcom from the 90s with a few political references thrown in here and there. Oh yes, was going to say that the first act (running joke that the mother can't cook, surly teenage / early 20s children, grumpy husband) was very reminiscent of "Butterflies"
|
|
80 posts
|
Post by missbabs on Aug 11, 2019 20:53:36 GMT
I found the humour so obvious and forced (along with the rest of the story - I mean, calling their son Karl?) that at times it was like watching some awful ITV sitcom from the 90s with a few political references thrown in here and there. Oh yes, was going to say that the first act (running joke that the mother can't cook, surly teenage / early 20s children, grumpy husband) was very reminiscent of "Butterflies" Yeah, that's exactly it - and jokes about son's girlfriend seeing dad naked, mum spitting out her own cooking, finding used tissues in son's bedroom...Every joke felt so lazy.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 11, 2019 21:21:08 GMT
I read the cooking thing, at least, to be one of the generational flags and to be contrasted with the gay son's four types of meat cooking for her post-funeral wake. As she was the first in her family to receive higher education, travel the world, own property, etc, so she was determined to be the first woman of her line not defined by domesticity in general and cooking in particular.
It was a very conscious decision.
I'm not qualified on the subject of familiarity as between mothers and adult daughter, whether it be about anal sex or wank tissues, so can't offer comment.
|
|
404 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Aug 12, 2019 11:56:14 GMT
I thought it was a good evening. The kind of play that Michael Codron would've produced in the West End for a season or two ( with a solid replacement cast) but then probably forgotten. It doesn't insult our intelligence and it does offer opportunities for talented actors but when all is said and done - so what? I will say this though, it's so much better than most of the other plays which have found their way to either of the Royal Court's stages.
|
|
349 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Aug 12, 2019 12:13:09 GMT
This play was redeemed by the cast, so in the end happy I saw it. I was left unsure however whether this was supposed to be a parody or just very lazy writing. If Jack Thorne's intent was to show how "true" socialist middle-class wannabees survived New Labour, then what exactly was the point. Beyond basically presenting fan-wank to a fraction of the audience watching it, who could jeer along with any mentions of Tony Blair.
|
|
2,502 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 12, 2019 12:45:42 GMT
On the South Bank Show Jack Thorne said that the play was based on his own life and indicated that the parents in the play are basically his own parents.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 12, 2019 13:51:43 GMT
It's quite remarkable when you take time to think about it - the social revolution from mid-60s to Blair, and then to now. For example, for most of the period, these now little old ladies had next to no control over their reproductive systems, or much else to be honest.
|
|
349 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Aug 12, 2019 14:25:32 GMT
On the South Bank Show Jack Thorne said that the play was based on his own life and indicated that the parents in the play are basically his own parents.
Well if it's an affectionate look at his parents I feel sorry because it's not how it comes across....
|
|
2,502 posts
|
Post by n1david on Aug 12, 2019 21:10:36 GMT
To be fair, he didn’t say it was intended to be affectionate...
|
|
717 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Aug 12, 2019 21:27:03 GMT
I think there was a better play struggling to come out that didn’t quite make it...but it was a noble attempt. As a signed up member of the Labour Party and firmly believing in “for the many not the few” I too struggle with the dilemma of, do I stick to principles and not hand down acquired wealth to my children, or, do I ditch principles as they will never be able to afford their own houses without help? If I give them money (that I have more or less acquired because property prices have gone up, rather than working for it) am I just perpetuating the problem? If I don’t will they have a harder life than I did? Does that matter? I think the play would have been more biting if they had decided the youngest son needed the money more than the other two....that would have set the cat amongst the pigeons. Mind you, why I think I could possibly do better than an accomplished professional writer of plays is beyond me! Made myself chuckle....
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 12, 2019 22:27:59 GMT
I think you can argue it's a pretty niche work, with perhaps only people of a certain vintage and political bent grasping some of the subtler themes. A word that, iirc correctly, was only used once in the play has also not been mentioned here: Brexit. If you wanted to turn it into a full 3 act, accusatory, blood-on-the-carpet generational melo/drama, there was scope - the foundation was there for a setting that explored/exposed the bitter factionalism in the current Labour Party.
It seemed to me the writer had a clear purpose, he achieved that and so we ended up with his love letter to mum.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Aug 13, 2019 6:13:22 GMT
"Hi Mum, I've written a play about you. You go on about anal sex then die between the second and third acts"
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 13, 2019 13:08:41 GMT
iirc, she told her daughter that neither of the economic students were given access. Family values!
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Oct 11, 2019 10:01:27 GMT
Newbury is a surprisingly astute setting for a show as political as this. Something, like nothing, happens anywhere – and in the nowhere of Newbury, a LOT of something has happened. As this play implies, it’s a city of contradictions, especially political ones. What is it known for mostly? The Greenham women, and the terrible bypass. What is it known for now? A racecourse, and mebbe featuring in Star Wars. For years, its two MP candidates were David Rendel (one of the only Lib Dems to fight the coalition) and Richard Benyon (the wealthiest MP), extremes of political ideologies fighting it out – and suddenly FORMER TORY Benyon’s a rebel to boot. Jack Thorne went to the same school as Aaron Banks – the first state school to win the Polo Cup (I went to a couple of schools along – that’s why I know so much about this arse-end of nowhere – where one of my alumni was Henry Bloody Bolton). To illustrate the contradictions of family and political opposition, there are actually fewer better places. It’s a town of political contradictions, making it the perfect setting for a show like this. Why do people contradict themselves? Why do generations contradict family? You won’t find anywhere richer to set this than, oddly and depressingly enough, Newbury.
The End of History is not really about any of these things. It’s about a family, and their sitcom-y bickering. There are even catchphrases!
Does this matter? Yes and no.
No, because The End of History is still an enjoyable fart about a funny old family. Who amongst us hasn’t been embarrassed by our parents, gone home as an adult but still felt like a child, found it hard to square differing familial politics but still loves their family? Made me laugh/made me cry.
But it’s called The End of History and is about political disagreement. Jack Thorne has introduced such a rich seam of ideas about family and what it means to raise one and leave a legacy, that to handle it so half-heartedly is profoundly disappointing. In its setting – a strangely divided political town at a time when the world was politically uncertain but potentially bright – the strange situation we’re politically in can be diagnosed. In its title, a contentious political issue (permanent liberalism and even peace) can be challenged by the reality of everything post-Fukuyama. In these three children – the dull posh daughter-in-law, the sell-out daughter, the unfulfilled potential – a series of questions arise about apples falling far from trees, and how possible it is to unconditionally love people who grow into our enemies. Thorne has set up an open goal politically, set it in a seemingly dull but surprisingly astute town, and populated it with such charm. How did society change, as the millennium approached, the Cold War seemed over, Liberalism seemed complete, and after 1996 things could only get better?
Analysing the complex rollercoaster of British politics through this story of two liberal oldies, coming to terms with their post-historical world still unpleasantly turning, coming to terms with their children’s growing conservatism (both small-c and big-C), is a great state-of-the-nation play. Sadly, despite this great set-up and hints to this effect, this is a sitcom about children being stroppy. Analysing family life, and how political disagreement is squared with unconditional love, is a great intimate character study. Sadly, whilst these stroppy children are themselves great fodder for this topic of disagreement, of where politics end and relationships begin (we often define ourselves by both our family and our beliefs, so when those are SO at odds, what do we sacrifice, and what pain does it cause us?), this is ignored, perhaps in case exploring it DOES tear the family apart. It’s strange and sad that Thorne – from the title downwards, from the family in the middle, from the setting upwards – paints such a curious and complex political picture, then populates it with the perfect family, then just gives up to affectionately noodle with these characters. This might sound odd, but I think Thorne likes these characters too much.
At the end, David Morrissey (who gets awkward dad-i-ness just right) reads a list of facts, without emotion or editorialising. There’s no better illustration of the play’s failure. Lesley Sharp having been such a presence – her performance a delightful whirlwind – I was saddened by her absence, and her death and life story did raise a lump in the throat. But I was reminded of Visitors, ending with a personal poem, thus daring to make us cry. Here, it’s a VERY strange conceit, to end a play with an unemotional list of historical moments a fictional person never lived. Presumably, this ties to the title – that whilst we’re living through ‘the end of history’, history keeps occurring, both politically and personally. Sadly, though – perhaps because Thorne simply likes these characters too much to editorialise – all we get is a list.
“The End of History”, Fukuyama’s ridiculous essay, implies that everything that happens after the 90s is post-history – politically, we’re perfect now! Is Thorne’s play named after it because, in setting a play amidst a politically divided family still fighting for freedoms and against corruption, he explores how the reality of post-history affects us all? Is he doing so because the threat of the bomb seems worlds away from this sleepy little town, yet just up the road from Greenham and in the range of Aldermaston, even dull school days have such a close proximity to history? Is it to contextualise this political family’s ordinariness? Or is it a fairly random miss? The family Thorne draws are too sitcom-y – even charming, certainly solipsistic – to make some grand statement on post-history; they focus on politics too much not to. There’s a great three-hour long play to be written exploring the contradictions of political disagreement with familial disagreement, the contradictions of living in the arse-end of nowhere yet being so politically somewhere, and how living in our perfect liberal post-historical world is, in fact, every bit as terrifying and unresolved as pre-Fukuyama both in city-wide protest and familial disagreements. This 100 minute play, sadly, is just a sitcom.
P.S.
Oh yes, was going to say that the first act (running joke that the mother can't cook, surly teenage / early 20s children, grumpy husband) was very reminiscent of "Butterflies" Butterflies has really held up. I think it’s because it takes as much time as a drama as a comedy – the use of not-Albinoni, for example, long stretches of serious contemplation. I hope that mention wasn’t disparaging, as it’s well worth a revisit.
P.P.S. Bugger it this has closed too hasn’t it? Oh bollocks.
|
|