|
|
Post by greenandbrownandblue on Feb 25, 2024 9:09:41 GMT
I too was there last night. Thought it was very good indeed. The play says a lot - and yes, at times it might be a little didactic - but the arguments are clearly set out and it's incredibly topical. I looked to see when it was first announced, and it was July 2023; so before the horrific events of October 7th and the latest conflict in Gaza.
It's very funny, but there are lines which are really uncomfortable laughs - or you laugh because they're so uncomfortable.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are moments of expressionism/absurdism littered throughout. Most work well (and I didn't mind the fourth wall breaking), though I can't decide if the one involving Angus Wright's first appearance is a moment of genius or should be cut immediately.
Also, I would've liked a bit more of a resolution for Gunnar Cauthery's character.
But it's a brilliant, thought-provoking evening with a stellar cast and, most importantly, thoroughly enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Feb 27, 2024 7:08:40 GMT
One of my very favourite moments in the play, towards the end is very Wagnerian (gulp), both mischievous sendup and absurd homage, and it gives Heffernan, at his most hilariously banal, and Myer-Bennett, at her most frenziedly wired, a "wild and crazy" theatrical moment that made the whole play immediately unforgettable.
If you are referring to what I think you are, that scene had the opposite effect on me - I was enjoying the play ok up until then but that bit crossed a line for me. I had the wtf moment and my stomach turned a bit. I have no problem with absurd or crazy weird like the dance scene - I don’t know what it was about but whatever. But that scene towards the end with the siblings … a bit too much.
I guess this was the point, to make the viewers deeply uncomfortable.
Was meaning to quote from Steve’s post above but my phone did weird things - don’t know how to fix sorry!!
|
|
1,504 posts
|
Post by foxa on Feb 28, 2024 14:15:34 GMT
Seeing this on Saturday.
Reviews that I've seen range from 2 to 4 stars - but at least doesn't sound boring.
|
|
5,199 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Feb 28, 2024 16:22:25 GMT
I thought it was a solid 3 at the first preview, and would probably agree with the 4s by now as they've had a bit of time to settle
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Feb 28, 2024 17:05:02 GMT
I’m very much in the “not for me” camp. I think the play is very confused in its provocation. It seems to be about whether we can separate great art from an artist with abhorrent views… but the man we are asked to consider is not generally considered a great artist (as the play itself attests). I’d be far more interested in a play about the legacy of Wagner or Roald Dahl or one of the many other examples the play skirts over.
Or is it about the fact many humans lose any sense of morality when money is involved? But again if so there is surely a more relatable way of telling this story.
I don’t mind being prodded and provoked by ideas but this felt so far from anything grounded in truth that I just felt I was expected to laugh at unfunny “shocking” situations by a play that thought it was clever. And I don’t need literalism but I never felt I understood the rules of this world or and therefore couldn’t invest in any of the characters or their journeys.
I would say “at least it’s not boring” but I’m afraid I was rather bored (as was the person directly opposite me across the thrust stage in the front row doing the heavy eyelids… nodding dog… jerk awake routine!)
|
|
1,500 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 29, 2024 13:23:44 GMT
If you are referring to what I think you are, that scene had the opposite effect on me - I was enjoying the play ok up until then but that bit crossed a line for me. . . that scene towards the end with the siblings … a bit too much. I guess this was the point, to make the viewers deeply uncomfortable. Yes, that's the scene. I very much understand why you don't like it, and I'll say why I love it in spoilers:- In Wagner's Ring Cycle, his romanticism is taboo-busting, with not only the siblings, Siegmund and Sieglinde carried away with each other, but also Siegfried gets carried away with his Aunty Brunhilde. As the siblings cave into their greed for (and break their own moral taboo against accepting) antisemitic-fuelled money, they simultaneously plunge into the same taboo-busting incestuous romanticism Wagner indulged in. The suggestion the play makes is that the whole romantic movement in Western civilisation is psychologically unhinged at some level, and that seems a provocative and worthwhile thing to get audiences thinking about. It's like a little bonus easter-egg thought-provoking kick in the teeth for people who like the Ring Cycle lol. PS: As an interesting aside, Jon Snow and his Aunty Khaleesi, and the Lannister siblings, IN "Game of Thrones" all seem inspired by the Ring Cycle, and GRR Martin comes out on the side of judging their taboo-busting ways very harshly.  |
|
|
|
Post by alessia on Feb 29, 2024 15:50:02 GMT
Thank you! I am really bad at navigating this site so I don't know how to quote- But your response is very interesting and helpful. It definitely makes sense of that weird scene!
|
|
|
|
Post by vandemonium on Feb 29, 2024 18:46:57 GMT
If you are referring to what I think you are, that scene had the opposite effect on me - I was enjoying the play ok up until then but that bit crossed a line for me. . . that scene towards the end with the siblings … a bit too much. I guess this was the point, to make the viewers deeply uncomfortable. Yes, that's the scene. I very much understand why you don't like it, and I'll say why I love it in spoilers:- In Wagner's Ring Cycle, his romanticism is taboo-busting, with not only the siblings, Siegmund and Sieglinde carried away with each other, but also Siegfried gets carried away with his Aunty Brunhilde. As the siblings cave into their greed for (and break their own moral taboo against accepting) antisemitic-fuelled money, they simultaneously plunge into the same taboo-busting incestuous romanticism Wagner indulged in. The suggestion the play makes is that the whole romantic movement in Western civilisation is psychologically unhinged at some level, and that seems a provocative and worthwhile thing to get audiences thinking about. It's like a little bonus easter-egg thought-provoking kick in the teeth for people who like the Ring Cycle lol. PS: As an interesting aside, Jon Snow and his Aunty Khaleesi, and the Lannister siblings, IN "Game of Thrones" all seem inspired by the Ring Cycle, and GRR Martin comes out on the side of judging their taboo-busting ways very harshly. I saw in some reviews that there is a moment of "magical Realism" that's associated with this Wagnerian moment? Would you mind explaining that -- suitable hidden of course!! |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Feb 29, 2024 19:56:51 GMT
I saw in some reviews that there is a moment of "magical Realism" that's associated with this Wagnerian moment? Would you mind explaining that -- suitable hidden of course!! I’m not sure if this is what they meant but {Spoiler - click to view}whilst the siblings have an incestuous fumble, another character is locked in the bathroom, goes silent and when they open the door she has vanished into thin air. Whether that’s magical realism or just magic is for you to decide I guess! |
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on Feb 29, 2024 21:37:52 GMT
I can only imagine it is sheer stupidity
Or ignorance
Which made someone programme this into the main house
Most of the playwrights works have been at RC upstairs
It is not mainstream theatre
And looks and feels incredibly out of place in such a large space
Total cack handed lack of any actual theatre know how
|
|
|
|
Post by kate8 on Mar 2, 2024 17:45:56 GMT
I felt like Alessia in that I was mostly enjoying and interested by this, but that bit near the end crossed a line and ended up being the most memorable thing, which seemed to unbalance what the play was trying to do. I appreciate Steve‘s explanation, which makes sense of it, but I think that would only be obvious to a minority of the audience. There’s a lot of 4th wall-breaking narrative, so maybe a bit of that was needed here, to explain the reference?
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 2, 2024 20:25:17 GMT
Got the impression writer Marius von Mayenburg had a fair amount to get off his chest. Happy to say I enjoyed watching the process.
Firstly and most urgently, where can I get Angus's pants ..
It’s certainly a satire, and a parody, definitely bleak, black comedy.
Not quite scattergun, perhaps more like someone with a finger on the trigger that slipped. He seemed to be having a lot of fun with modern liberal values in general, with hypocrisy and *flexibility* born of self-interest a particular theme - for the painting here, see house price inflation, migration NIMBYism (and a hundred other issues).
Bruce Norris is better at teasing, tbh mocking, liberals; subtle, sophisticated – he’s so good a metropolitan audience generally doesn’t notice. Marius von Mayenburg’s approach is well, frankly, German: bullseye direct, painfully clear, nothing left to work out on the way home. Still fun.
I really enjoyed the Hitler as a young man theme. They seemed to bottle out of Palestine. Aspects of the art discussion were fine, others a little laboured.
Does von Mayenburg always want to cover so much ground?
This is terrific programming by the YV. I’ve seen others talk on here about not seeing enough European theatre. Today made me wish we were offered less sensationalist US product.
A quick look at reviews ...I see The Guardian chose to watch a play about “a provocative plunge into art history”. LOL. If you say so ..
|
|
|
|
Post by prefab on Mar 4, 2024 22:20:29 GMT
Wow, that was "nacht" very good. I thought I'd like this because I'm usually a huge fan of dark satires where the characters seem to be normal bourgeoisie at first but then the civilized veneer slips revealing the sociopathy beneath.
Here my problem was that the characters--or at least the female leads, Nicola and Judith--were insufferable from the start. I had a particular problem with Judith, because von Mayenburg kept setting her up to be the moral center of the play, but most of her moral arguments were extremely stupid and would fall apart with a bit of prodding. I think my problems with the character mostly had to do with the script, but Jenna Augen's performance didn't help; maybe another actor in the role could have offered a softer, less grating take on Judith.
I also thought that the play's central "moral dilemma" just wasn't much of a dilemma at all. Early on, John Heffernan's character makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion for how they could spend part of the money from the painting's sale, but this gets shut down (presumably because the play still had an hour of running time left). A more interesting play with less cartoonish characters might have centered the moral dilemma on the stories the inheritors of the painting have to tell about its provenance, even if this tars the reputation of their dead grandparents.
|
|
427 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 4, 2024 22:34:57 GMT
I thought this play was Bonkers :hilarious, harrowing, messy and provocative. Clearly its not for everybody but I loved its audaciousness and I thought the performances were all terrific. Is it perfect? No. But it's a wild ride and totally worth it.
|
|
1,291 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Mar 5, 2024 0:45:25 GMT
It sounds like my cup of tea. I'll be seeing it in 3 weeks time.
|
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Mar 5, 2024 12:25:41 GMT
This wasn’t for me overall. I feel that the acting talent was let down by the writing.
It was all very unsubtle and the arguments set up in a simplistic way, particularly with the character of Judith railing against her husband, sister in law and so on. With the provocative absurdist elements, I actually felt sorry for Angus Wright in *that* scene, and the brother/sister Wagnerian element was I guess deliberately too far.
There could have been a very different (better?) play here considering the issues, but we just got volley upon volley of shots across the stage, with entrenched views once the initial set up was established.
I did like how the views of the brother and sister did change (as required for the arguments) though quickly, and I suppose it worked insofar as it was uncomfortable, unflinching and provocative.
My rating sounds quite middling - it isn’t, just reflects the general mix of everything thrown into this play.
6/10.
|
|
1,867 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Mar 6, 2024 0:04:35 GMT
The main issue I'm left with is the dance interlude.
I can on some level explain the incest (a phrase I had never expected to use!), but the dancing - I'm just lost. Is it the same character, is it the buyer (the 'smoke and mirrors')? Other than that, this evening had a loud audience reaction of f*** off to the piece about the Third Reich setting the scene for modern Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Mar 6, 2024 0:13:16 GMT
It is not of the Anglosphere. Imo, it's not going to make complete sense. It's German, made for a German audience who have their own cultural contexts and touchstones. And even, allegedly, humour!
Have you seen German TV ..
|
|
|
|
Post by zephyrus on Mar 6, 2024 11:19:18 GMT
The main issue I'm left with is the dance interlude. I can on some level explain the incest (a phrase I had never expected to use!), but the dancing - I'm just lost. Is it the same character, is it the buyer (the 'smoke and mirrors')? Other than that, this evening had a loud audience reaction of f*** off to the piece about the Third Reich setting the scene for modern Germany. I was there last night too and thought I'd imagined someone in the audience shouting "f*** off" - glad to have it confirmed that it was what I heard...! The QR Code provided at the Young Vic links to a synopsis of the play, and it says of the 'dance interlude': "We then meet Kahl the buyer dancing in his home. Kahl is topless and wearing fetishist underwear with cutouts showing parts of his flesh on his thighs and buttocks. He dances with Evamaria and she hands him some body spray in preparation for the potential sale of the painting. He sprays this as he dances off stage." So now we know!! |
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Mar 6, 2024 22:35:14 GMT
I found this pretty toe-curling, some sensitive matters dealt neither well or with good humour. Some laughter around me but I felt so uncomfortable during the debate about Palestine that I had to look away from the stage at points. The show starts off rather clumsily and you don’t care much about the characters until the “drama” unfolds. I thought Jenna Augen was brilliant though and her showdown with Angus Wright was worth seeing, but otherwise this left me rather cold. I was hoping to laugh a lot but felt myself thinking “why?!?”. Some unimpressed faces around me when I looked around - I think this will appeal to some but this will not end up in highlights of 2024 theatre
|
|
|
|
Post by lt on Mar 28, 2024 10:29:39 GMT
Thought I would enjoy this more than I did, there were some great lines, but as a whole I don't think the play really worked, and I wasn't convinced by some of the acting. I wasn't exactly bored and did feel like there was a kernel of an interesting piece here.
What definitely didn't work for me was - without giving any spoilers - the development of the brother/sister relationship, this seemed to come out of nowhere, and I thought the playwright hadn't really come up with an ending, it just finished. I don't think we would particularly have spotted that it was the end of the play if the lights hadn't come up.
|
|
4,809 posts
|
Post by Mark on Mar 28, 2024 10:37:11 GMT
I liked this a fair bit. The main bit about the writing I didn't like was all the asides to the audience and some of the more surreal parts. I thought when it was focused on the main content it was very good, and the actors were excellent. Lots of interesting elements contained within the script
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 30, 2024 23:36:51 GMT
Saw it tonight.
When it was announced I noted the similarity to Branden Jacobs-Jenkins's 'Appropriate' - and yep, it's basically 'Appropriate' on acid. Lots and lots and lots of acid. It's smart, vicious, surreal, and often VERY funny, and I suspect one of those plays where you'll either go with it and love it or really loathe it. I really enjoyed it - and under the bombast, it's got a rather more complex take than 'Appropriate' on the way we interact with historical atrocities (note how, towards the end, the play's lone Jewish voice is literally erased). And the performances are superb. It's particularly fascinating to see Jane Horrocks, whose work is often characterised by very BIG choices, deliver a tightly-wound, *very* controlled, mostly relatively quiet performance as a woman whose moral compass is utterly broken - although for me the evening belongs to Jenna Augen.
The production also features a notably extraordinary pair of underpants.
Four-and-a-half stars.
|
|
902 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by bordeaux on Apr 11, 2024 23:23:22 GMT
I loved this. Dark and funny and lots to think about, especially for someone, like me, who teaches German and loves Germany. Mostly horrible characters, but mostly believable with a couple of comic villains thrown in.
|
|
1,488 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by mkb on Apr 16, 2024 12:51:35 GMT
I think I am falling out of love with director Patrick Marber. Having previously been a fan, I bucked the trend by finding Leopoldstadt dull, and now this, where he's in full-on pretentious mode.
Perhaps the dialogue works in German, but, in this English translation, the characters speak and behave unnaturalistically. Why? Is it for humour? No, this play has none. You're more likely to roll your eyes than break a smile. Is it to serve a greater dramatic purpose? To make interesting philosophical points about the descent of humankind into a moral cesspit rooted in greed and selfishness? Well, perhaps, but those points, that are delivered here with sledgehammers rather than gentle nudges, would resonate better if the humans on stage were relatable. They all seem to loathe one another, in particular the married couple. The sole Jewish character presents such badly-constructed arguments that you end up actually disliking her and rooting against her, surely not the intended outcome.
Very disappointing.
Two stars.
One act: 19:34-21:07
(Seen on Saturday 6 April, 2024)
|
|
