Baghdaddy - Royal Court

I've got a ticket for Monday, will report back :-D

I was also there last night-I did not think it was so bad, as I felt that some bits of it were well done and balanced the bits that were disappointing. The first 15 minutes of it I was in the 'wtf' mode of thinking, but I always give things the benefit of the doubt and then started enjoying 'some' of it. I do agree it can be shortened, some scenes are needlessly long and some too clownish. The three ghost things could be paired down a bit, both in terms of length of their scenes, and in terms of the loudness and slapstick. The long speech towards the end when it all gets very obviously political, is also too long; whenever there are long speeches in a play, I tend to switch off- they usually do nothing to move me. In this case, the speech had the opposite effect and I found myself thinking of the train home- saying that, I heard sobs from behind so someone was definitely moved by it. On the positives, I felt that Jasmine Naziha Jones’ acting was really good, the scenes with her as a child with her father were well written and acted. I never felt bored and never looked at the time, some bits I found funny. Person sitting next to me left at interval, others around me absolutely loved it, great whoops and whistles at the end (maybe friends!) but no standing ovation.

Some spoilers follow. . .

Yes. It's an in-yer-face Dennis Kelly/Sarah Kane/Philip Ridley aesthetic, with (imaginary) luridly smart-suited cartoonish comedic sadists tormenting the two protagonists, an Iraqi father and his British daughter, embodying their survivors' fear and guilt in London, as their relatives in Iraq experience the full horror of two Gulf wars.

I'm with Alessia, in that I really liked a LOT of this show, but the negative reactions to the first half don't surprise me. Expect more positive reactions from folks who stayed for the second half, partly because those folks were amenable to the stylised in-yer-face aesthetic, but mostly because it's only in the second half that the aggressive in-yer-face clowning gives way to direct and deeper expression of the alienation and anguish that the protagonists feel, such as the extremely powerful, vulnerable and deeply emotional speech that Alessia alludes to.

In the first preview, I'm told, this show played without a break, I imagine to avoid people walking out before the second half payoff, but then they must have realised it would be all too much to experience this whole in-yer-face thing without a breather in the middle.

For my part, I loved Philip Arditti as the titular "Baghdaddy." He is an oasis of affecting and vulnerable humanity, as he tries to score maximum pain killers at every chemist in London for his suffering relatives abroad. It is tragic the way his daughter's attempt to simply be a normal British girl, coupled with his attempt to shield her from the horrors of war, lead them both to be alienated from each other. But it rang true for me.

The in-yer-face first half is way too long and repetitive, but the second-half payoff really hits the spot, in my opinion. Like Alessia, I was never bored, if initially nonplussed by the violent clowning, but the show grew on me, and once it deepened in the second half, I felt like the style of the show was more likely to imprint this affecting story on my memory than a conventional drama.

In addition to Arditti's notable anchoring central performance, the playwright is affecting as his daughter and Noof Ousellam commendably really goes for it as one of the lurid monochrome monster clowns torturing the two protagonists, reminding me of Ridley's equally smart-suited psyche abusing monster, Cosmo Disney, as well as most of the villains in Dennis Kelly's TV show "Utopia" lol.

3 stars for the first half, 4 stars for the second half, 3 and a half stars overall from me.

A very charitable and forgiving attitude, londonpostie. Not one I can match as all but one production I have seen at the RC in the last year or two (Kylie Jenner, For Black Boys, the Glow etc) has been dire, extremely disappointing and imo a waste of time and money I could have spent on better things. Ironically the only play I liked (Rare Earth Mettle) was not universally popular so maybe I should be avoiding those that everyone raves about and opt for those they pan?

Nor is there anything coming up there which sounds the least appealing to me, ie what used to be a "normal" play.

I have historic affection for the Royal Court - I love the buidling and have, in the past, seen some great things there - but it's been a while since I saw anything I loved. I want to go to something this season, but haven't booked for anything yet. They've all sounded such hard work.

Steve's reviews manage to be compassionate and intelligent - certainly both more so than me. I love reading them, but accept I am more likely to be irritated than he is!

It is a difficult one, they try very hard to push diverse writers and topics, and I admire them a lot for it, but like others I long for a really 'good' play, alongside the experimental things.

You are right - might I also add to this that 'pushing the boundaries' and 'radical' lose their meaning if places like the Royal Court only select work that follows whatever is the latest narrative accepted by liberal audiences, rather than genuinely challenge. There is nothing radical in doing that? Speaking from the point of view of someone who works in art education, I see this so much.

It’s really an industry wide problem that diversity is framed in terms of what’s trendy and without looking at what barriers exist.

Right now a ton of lower level support is being thrown at queer and trans artists (Vault Festival is being criticised for programming a million queer shows but few non-white artists), but the only LGBTQ shows that get mainstream programming tend to be about white cis-gay men, in plays that tell very traditional and cliched narratives.

Minorities that aren’t considered “trendy” don’t get a look in. Theatre is still very hostile towards disabled writers, for example (the only recent disabled play in a mainstream venue I can think of is Amy Trig’s play, which is great but an autobiographical one-woman play performed by the writer). Class is often ignored too. The Court’s treatment of Jewish writers this year has been really bad. They could have found an easy win in programming an actual play by a Jewish playwright but instead commissioned a journalist and non-playwright to put together a verbatim devised piece.

A lot of smaller venues are programming more artists and writers of colour, which is great, but it’s almost always young black and brown writers from middle class, university-educated backgrounds, usually (not always, and not in this case, but usually) relegated to studio spaces, nearly always autobiographical or whatever trauma cliche is associated with that minority, and often rigid in what kind of stories they’re allowed to tell.

I know one theatre who recently commissioned a writer to write a play about knife crime in Lewisham, and an experienced playwright who was actually from Lewisham and grew up homeless and involved in gangs and knife crime pitched for it, but was white and the theatre couldn’t wrap their heads around a white person knowing about gangs, so they gave the commission to a young black writer who’d grown up in the middle of the Cotswolds and had just graduated from Cambridge. I don’t want to see what someone from the Cotswolds thinks about knife crime in South London. I want to see a play about what it’s like growing up black in the English countryside. Or a play from a black writer about any topic of their choosing.

I know another award-winning black playwright who was regularly asked for meetings by a major theatre, who turned down all her ideas and plays. Finally she asked, “what do you want from me, why do you keep asking to read my work but never say yes” and the LM said flat out, “Write the knife crime play and we’ll put it on.”

There’s a real problem in the assumption black writers can only write the knife crime play, LGBTQ writers can only write the Coming Out play or the AIDS play, Northern Irish writers can only write the Troubles play, Iraqi writers can only write the Iraq War play. There’s often the assumption too that minorities can only write autobiographically, and in a way that exploits and requires them to reveal significant information about their private lives and personal trauma.

If any of those writers wanted to write a purely fictional (or research-based) play about 1970s British politics, or mid-20th C painters, or the state of the railways, or a sci-fi play set on a spaceship, would anyone be interested? Would any theatre even give it consideration?

This issue is rampant in all forms of media. Dozens of youtubers and people who is not part of the mainstream media discuss it

The funny thing is that media and people on social media will praise actors, writers, directors etc of certain races, gender, and so forth who do the right things. But the moment they express a view that is not acceptable by them they are deemed a heathen.

You can only look at J.k. Rowling for example. Many of us praised her once for making dumbledore gay and hermione black in the play. Now the tone is different

Theatre companies, film studios, video game companies media outlets and other forms of media say they advocate for diversity but what they mean is they advocate diverse people who think, say and write the right things

I found this quite bizarre, but did stick through for the 2nd half. It felt like there was quite a tonal shift between the two halves and the reduction in the use of the 3 spirit characters made the 2nd half more enjoyable for me I think. Big whoops and whistles from a fair few people in the audience, but I think only a 2 star for me.