The Divide (Parts 1 and 2) - New Ayckbourn

I'm sorry I don't think Ayckbourn can do future very well....and his recent plays have been pretty dire.On the other hand it is lovely to see something I DON'T have to book!!! It has a certain pleasure all of its own!

He is entertaining

But hardly the most sophisticated of writers

Ayckbourn may tend to write about unsophisticated people (at least when in his comedy of manners mode) but that is very different to being an unsophisticated writer. The complexity of his situations, his playing with time and location (even, with House and Garden, merging two plays into one story) makes him the equal of most, maybe even Stoppard, whose dialogue and structure can often seem to overwhelm character and situation.

I've been rooting through old diaries and stuff this spring - I've been making 'actors who I'll watch stuff for' lists since I was in junior school, though back then it was mainly horror and Clint Eastwood.

I'm seeing it next week, I'll let you know my thoughts.

#TheDivide seems to be the main one. Not lots, but if you sort by latest going back to yesterday early evening probably gives tweets from around ten people.

I don't know quite what the Edinburgh Festival audiences are normally like, and not clear on what the reference to 'choristers' is for this play, but this photo on the left looks pretty disheartening if it reflects the audience turnout...



the photo on the right looks like a member of the performance, but the one on the left looks like an audience-perspective(?)

The British Theatre Guide critic has given this 2 stars; I only skimmed the review as what I did see was depressing, including words such as "ponderous".

Ugh, the reviews for this are so disappointing.

I know that the general early consensus here seemed to be somewhere between negative and indifferent, but it seemed right up my alley; a dystopian sci-fi setting, an outline that -if treated appropriately- could have been interesting nuanced and thought-provoking, intriguing rehearsal photos, and the mentions of Margaret Atwood George Orwell & Aldous Huxley.

In the end, despite some excitement, I decided to take heed of the negative comments here, and hold off on booking for the Old Vic until the early reviews came out. Definitely thankful that I did now, so thanks everyone.

The stage review has the following paragraph:  "The Divide raises so many questions. The chief one being had no one actually read it before deciding to put it on? And did they not notice how regressive the whole thing was? Or question whether it was necessary for it to go on for so long? Length alone does not make for event theatre. By the end The Divide feels like a feat of endurance more than anything else".

I'm with you on that. I don't know Ayckbourn, I am not familiar with his work, but I know from my own experience that I didn't enjoy things that had good reviews and I loved things with bad reviews. As for the length, it would be hypocritical of me to moan about it, given I sat through both parts of Angels in America on one day. I will be interested to read what other members of theatre board will think about the play once they see it. As for now, I will wait until Wednesday (Part 1) and Thursday (Part 2).

I'm certainly not an Ayckbourn-hater and indeed have loved productions of some of his plays. For instance, last year's version of How The Other Half Lives (touring again, but with a different cast) had me crying with laughter, and unlike wickedgrin, I also really enjoyed the most recent (Menier) verson of Communicating Doors. I'd seen both before and in the former case, possibly a couple of times, so I now think that the production can make a critical difference; also your own perspective, as this changes with age. But I do agree that he is possibly too prolific and I certainly don't really like his experiments with sci-fi, though when the time travel is from the present backwards (as in Communicating Doors and others), that does work for me.

I do want any new work of his to succeed, obviously, but also for plays to be staged only if they're ready and likely to appeal to an audience - not necessarily his regulars but any paying audience of reasonable size. Early comments sound as though this isn't the case with The Divide, though there is time for some tweaking if that's an option. Not sure whether this play is capable of salvage, however, based on reviews; Michael Billington actually gave it 3 stars, which is more than most, and seemed to be trying hard to be fair but what he wrote was still pretty damning.

I've seen both parts now, so I'm ready to share my thoughts.
I love a good dystopia (oxymoron?). The world created by Alan Ayckbourne is interesting: there is the full segregation of sexes, with women living South of The Divide and men living North of it. Due to this, homosexuality is a norm and heterosexuality is a crime, with death being the punishment. Babies are born and raised in the South, with one woman taking the role of the Mother (Mama) and another taking the role of a Mother Father (Mapa). Pregnancies are achieved through artificial insemination and the seed is provided by the Council. Both sexes are taught of the superiority of men and inferiority of females. When you listen to it as an audience member, it leaves a terrible taste in your mouth. The Divide was created as a result of a plagues - a sexually transmitted disease carried by females (who are immune to its effects) which is deadly to males and at one point decimated their numbers.
The whole story is related as quotes from the diaries of two siblings: Soween (Erin Doherty) and Elihu (Jake Davies), through the minutes of Council meetings and letter exchanges. I think this was the first play I've seen, where everything was based on a sort of a reportage. It worked really well.
Erin Doherty gives a brilliant performance, with a candidness of a teenage girl. She's so human, so real. The way she stammers and holds back tears when talking/writing about being bullied. The way her eyes and face lights up every time she talks about how much she loves one of the characters. I feel like we can expect great things from Erin in the future. I will be definitely rooting for her. As for Jake Davies, he performs with a boyish charm, not really understanding everything that happens around him. His acting is really good, but for me, it was Erin's character (Soween) whom I felt for the most.
I felt like the play was too long, but I didn't feel bored. There are definitely some scenes that could be removed, but I am not a writer (as you can see from my blabber).
I really hope that Erin Doherty gets recognition for this role, even if people hate the play.