1,193 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Sept 6, 2024 15:55:51 GMT
It’s such an oddly worded email…
|
|
|
Post by Javert on Sept 8, 2024 10:21:53 GMT
Saw it last night. My primary gripe is that the writing tries to be clever for its own sake, and ironically, obscures the actual payoff of intellectualising some fairly banal ideas. For a play ostensibly about human interaction, you're not led to really *care* about any of it; witty insights and inventive dialogue can only do so much. And even if this is intentionally emblematic of the central theme -- the discord between performativity and "the real thing" -- the experience becomes more of an academic exercise than an enjoyable work of theatre.
|
|
|
Post by greenandbrownandblue on Sept 8, 2024 10:38:47 GMT
I was there last night too. Really enjoyed it, though I found the first act stronger than the second.
Agree that most of the characters aren't very likeable - though McArdle does a terrific job in making you want to like what is a fairly self-centered, arrogant and at times odious man.
It's very funny - some brilliant lines in there, especially in the opening scene. Also it's unbelievably prescient. There's a scene towards the end that I couldn't believe was written in 1982, given how relevant it was to what's happening right now.
I thought the use of stage crew (or in fact understudies playing the stage crew), in a Brechtian device, worked well given the play's underlying theme.
Now give us a revival of Arcadia, please!
|
|
778 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by rumbledoll on Sept 9, 2024 7:35:33 GMT
Saw it last night. My primary gripe is that the writing tries to be clever for its own sake, and ironically, obscures the actual payoff of intellectualising some fairly banal ideas. For a play ostensibly about human interaction, you're not led to really *care* about any of it; witty insights and inventive dialogue can only do so much. And even if this is intentionally emblematic of the central theme -- the discord between performativity and "the real thing" -- the experience becomes more of an academic exercise than an enjoyable work of theatre. I haven't seen the play staged, I've only read it but this exactly what I thought of it! James McArdle is always a draw, a fantastic actor, but I''ll probably give this a miss since it doesn't fit in terms of dates into the upcoming trip anyway..
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Sept 17, 2024 22:23:19 GMT
It doesn't hold up, the first half is essentially a comedy and the second half tries to be a drama after we have been given no reason to care about the two leading characters and one very good reason not to.
Casting is absolutely horrendous, particularly the female leads, and that's before the lack of chemistry. Come back Dimitri Weismann, all is forgiven.
|
|
|
Post by theatreguymike on Sept 21, 2024 22:48:07 GMT
Director Max Webster clearly wants us to know we are watching a play. The set emphasises the acting space with an illuminated surround at both ground and ceiling level, and at one point the very visible stagehands even join the main character in a dance!
The author of the play, Tom Stoppard, has written a play about a playwright, himself, and about his own affair with an actress. The first scene within that play is a scene from the playwright’s play about an infidelity. And so we have three levels of narrative about affairs to consider! The ‘Russian Doll’ situation is never far from our thoughts and neither is the theatrical artifice of the whole show. And a show it is – a show-off of Stoppard’s wit at expressing himself and exercising his thoughts on love, (in)fidelity, and…er…himself. Some shy away from his spectacular self-exposure and, I must admit, this frequent promotion of his intellect is often a problem I have with some of Stoppard’s other plays. But not here. Oh no, at this one I smile at the conceit of it all, I laugh at the jokes so astute, surprising and characterful. And I care about those people on stage going through their carefully contrived performance, baring their souls, to achieve before our very eyes, the real thing.
That first scene from the-play-within-a-play is just slightly actorly, catches our attention but we know we are watching from a distance. We are then gradually drawn in to the life of the playwright (maybe Stoppard’s, but essentially that of the in-play author Henry). His life is falling apart with pangs of love, and who knows when and where it will settle? His affair is the catalyst but, as we progress through the complex relationship tangle, we can see real feelings develop. There are tears, but by the end those central players have achieved a real bond.
James McArdle commands the stage as Henry, meeting all the demands of Stoppard’s wordy script with a satisfying flourish. Henry’s second partner Annie is played by Bel Powley, and I was expecting a problem here. She has proved herself adept at teenage roles on tv, but here she matures as we watch, giving a robust counterbalance to McArdle’s Henry. There are also Susan Wokoma and Oliver Johnstone as Max and Charlotte, the ex-partners of Henry and Annie, balancing the foursome while still hinting at reasons for rejection. I also want to mention Rilwan Abiola Owokoniran who pops up briefly to charm Annie (and us) with his seductive smile.
At our matinee performance, I wondered if the audience was asleep, so meagre was any sense of a response. After the interval they awoke! It’s a theatre classic. Our attention brings its reward. And rewarding it certainly was.
|
|
1,344 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Sept 22, 2024 5:45:43 GMT
I too was at the matinee for this and really enjoyed it. Didn’t notice any lack of response pre interval. All around me seemed very engaged. It’s definitely one of his more accessible plays.
|
|
184 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Oct 13, 2024 20:14:55 GMT
Saw this at the weekend. Really enjoyed it and thought James McArdle was really terrific.
|
|
283 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Oct 16, 2024 11:45:50 GMT
I saw this last night with high hopes but was sadly disappointed.
I'd seen a couple of Stoppard plays down the years but it was seeing Travesties in the WE about seven years ago which just blew me away. It was one of the most stimulating nights I've ever spent in a theatre, like watching a circus, but the acrobatics were with words and ideas. I'd been on the look out for another major Stoppard revival for a while, so I snapped this up, particularly as I love plays about writers/actors and those that have plays within plays.
But I really didn't think this worked. I don't know if it was the script, or the production, but it just felt really heavy handed to me. It never took off. I was expecting a much smarter script, with more layers and more playfulness. I never believed that any of the characters were in love - there was no yearning, no poetry, no romance, no feeling. It felt like the academic approach sucked all the love out of it, meaning the script was working against the subject matter. It didn't even feel like a succesful academic examination of love/attraction/relationships, because it just didn't seem to have any great insight to share.
I enjoyed the cricket bat section, and there were some great one liners, but it just never amounted to anything. I'm still hoping to find another Stoppard to equal Travesties.
|
|
24 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jake on Oct 16, 2024 12:39:23 GMT
I saw this last night with high hopes but was sadly disappointed. I'd seen a couple of Stoppard plays down the years but it was seeing Travesties in the WE about seven years ago which just blew me away. It was one of the most stimulating nights I've ever spent in a theatre, like watching a circus, but the acrobatics were with words and ideas. I'd been on the look out for another major Stoppard revival for a while, so I snapped this up, particularly as I love plays about writers/actors and those that have plays within plays. But I really didn't think this worked. I don't know if it was the script, or the production, but it just felt really heavy handed to me. It never took off. I was expecting a much smarter script, with more layers and more playfulness... Travesties with Tom Hollander was magnificent but even there I wondered if it was the script or what Marber, Hollander etc did with it that gets the credit. The script/narrative must have some merit because I remember finding Marber's own Don Juan in Soho - which, if memory serves, was in the WE around the same time - much less impressive. One problem with The Real Thing is that over the years the script has suffered from a fair bit of censorship tweaking. Charlotte's line about 'two semi-stiff lower lips' was certainly missing from the last production I saw. I suspect a lot of the revisions are done by Stoppard himself, but I resisted the temptation to see what the Old Vic made of this.
|
|