1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Mar 31, 2017 9:55:40 GMT
Quite agree  |
|
247 posts
|
Post by barelyathletic on Mar 31, 2017 9:57:09 GMT
the core NT audience of white, 50+yr olds there tonight laughed all the way through it, and seemed nicely content by the end. Nothing too heavy or much demanded of them.
Wow! How to patronise an entire group of people in one cheap shot. Still, at least I know I'm going to enjoy it. Can't have anything too demanding to get my poor little, easily pleased, head round. Theatre is so difficult when you're my age.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Mar 31, 2017 10:22:15 GMT
Digression into personal attacks removed.
Apologies for my part in that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 12:39:19 GMT
Just had a look at Rush tickets for this and they are front row of the pit, so that's probably the best bet if you want to see this for a decent price.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Mar 31, 2017 13:02:22 GMT
Just had a look at Rush tickets for this and they are front row of the pit, so that's probably the best bet if you want to see this for a decent price. The position of the stage means the side £15 tickets aren't bad. |
|
15 posts
|
Post by loopyjohn on Mar 31, 2017 13:32:01 GMT
Sat in the front row last night and they are great seats - especially for £15. Do not be put off by the warning on the NT site about needing to look up - the stage isn't high at all. There were a few other hazards the NT site didn't warn about - a prop flying through the air (intended) and a near encounter with Ben Chaplin during a moment of stage violence but some people would be fighting for the seats if they knew about that...
Great cast - and worth seeing just for them - but I didn't really care for the play.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Mar 31, 2017 16:40:01 GMT
Booked front row ticket for Sat 8th matinee for £15....earlier in the day they had it on sale for £20 as a rush ticket! Cheeky! One time when my indecision paid off! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 0:59:15 GMT
Saw this Monday evening (final preview).
Audience seemed to like it, but I found it largely over-written and - strangely enough for a play that goes on about empathy a lot - entirely populated by a cast of characters that I found it difficult to empathise with.
The play, the performances, the production - it all seemed a bit pleased with itself. Perhaps I was hoping that the play was going to be a razor-sharp investigation of consent/rape, and was always facing a losing battle because essentially it is 2 parts relationship drama and 1 part middle-class comedy.
Others have praised the cast but from where I was - in the gallery - I thought there was a lot of "acting" going on (except Pip Carter, who was nicely understated). I particularly struggled with Anna Maxwell-Martin's histrionics. I've also seen Adam James in various things (at least 5) over the years; I think he's basically given the same performance in all of them.
The play hits a few predictable "new writing" hurdles; the pointless (yet obligatory - 'cos it's "edgy") use of the c-word, characters having "meaningful" dreams and then discussing them (happened twice), a not entirely earned "that reminds me" plot segway moment, and plenty of moments where the playwright is struggling to successfully use plot and character to disguise what they want say.
A few decent gags, but some of the treatment of rape/consent veered into comedy in a way that I didn't enjoy. Be interested to see what wider opinion is on this, but it was a misfire for me.
|
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 4, 2017 15:00:59 GMT
Loved the first half, hated the second. Smug detached lawyers learn life lessons that turn out to be schematic, didactic and problematic. Fab cast redeems this, making it a thoroughly worthwhile night! Some spoilers follow. . . The fact that the cast is peppered with "unsympathetic" characters didn't bother me. They seemed like real people I know, in that criminal lawyers sometimes do consider themselves above the fray of petty human emotions, with their seen-it-before detachment and knowledge how to work the system for their clients. How could lawyers defending accused rapists even function if they didn't emotionally distance themselves from cases, after all? Nina Raine has evidently done tons of research into the way lawyers speak to each other about these sorts of things, the way they use the first person to talk about their clients' cases among themselves, as well as the tricks they use in court to plant ideas into the minds of juries. If only for this, the play is worth seeing, as if you don't know how these tricks work and how lawyers think, you'll know a lot more by the end of the play. For the first half, the general bonhomie among the lawyers and their wives, who are all friends, features zinging dialogue and superb performances. Yes, Adam James does his morally bankrupt wanker routine (again) to perfection, but what I love about him as an actor is his effortless naturalism, in particular the way he continues carrying his emotional ball long after his lines are done, how he continues to exist and react in scenes, alive to every action and reaction of other characters. I believe him, every time, especially when he's not talking. James' defense lawyer, Jake is sidekick to the main character, Ben Chaplin's Edward, another defense lawyer who represents rapists. Chaplin is more wired than James, but no less natural. I loved his dynamic with his onstage wife, Kitty, played by Anna Maxwell Martin, as they bat back and forth all sorts of little glances and ticks that clue us into a backstory that's begging to be told. Pip Carter's prosecutor character, Tim, is the most phlegmatic of all the lawyers featured, happily socialising with the defense lawyers who habitually defeat him in court. He has a honeyed Tim-Mullanesque sing-song tone to his every utterance that suggests he couldn't care less about anything, except maybe winning. It's a great performance. Over the course of Act 1, it's great fun to live with these characters, and listen to their banter. But in the second half, Nina Raine drops the bante,r and launches into dramatic plot machinations that are so transparent that boredom sets in, or if not boredom, then disappointment. There is a lovely coda once Raine's cogs stop their clunky spinning, so the second half is not all bad. Raine's overall plan is not only overly didactic, it is also problematic. Noone who plans to see this play should know what I'm referring to, so I'll put it in spoiler brackets: Raine's purpose is to demonstrate that lawyers, and the justice system, are too detached from the pain of victims. In order to make the whole thing real for the lawyers, she has Ben Chaplin's Ed rape his wife, Anna Maxwell Martin's Kitty, when she decides to leave him. Because no two rapes are the same, and because there are two sides to every coin, the characters devolve into recriminations that bring home to them, and the other characters, how much pain is endured by those who go to court in rape cases.
After experiencing this misery, Ed learns to care about humanity. Yes, that's right, rape turns out to be a character-building positive learning experience for Ed. So if Foxa were to suggest a takehome lesson from this play, one of them is that rape may be the solution to empathy problems. That's disturbing, even if the wider point about the justice system being too detached from victims is successfully made. All in all, this play has great actors, playing topically recognisable characters, that unfortunately get caught up in an overly schematic plot. For the acting, and for the intriguing complexity of the underlying issues (there is much to discuss after leaving this play), this is a worthwhile night out. 3 and a half stars |
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Apr 5, 2017 15:16:58 GMT
The reviews are much better than I thought. Sincerely I was quite underwhelmed by the whole thing when I saw it on Saturday. The acting is very good but from the synopsis I would have imagined that the trial for rape would have been more central and the play would have focused on different attitudes towards that. I failed to get engaged by the rich smug characters so it was an interesting night, but not a play that left me with much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2017 16:08:44 GMT
The reviews are much better than I thought. Sincerely I was quite underwhelmed by the whole thing when I saw it on Saturday. The acting is very good but from the synopsis I would have imagined that the trial for rape would have been more central and the play would have focused on different attitudes towards that. I failed to get engaged by the rich smug characters so it was an interesting night, but not a play that left me with much. Totally agree with you |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 5, 2017 20:12:15 GMT
agree reviews were a lot better than I thought it was.
A play about that unthinkable subject, should be an important play, with a strong moral message at5 the core such as; why do so many of these cases fail in the judiciary process for a starter. I thought the second half picked up, some of the acting I thought was woeful and there was a couple of laugh out moments too, even though you feel you shouldn't.
|
|
1,239 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Apr 5, 2017 23:54:39 GMT
The reviews are much better than I thought. Sincerely I was quite underwhelmed by the whole thing when I saw it on Saturday. The acting is very good but from the synopsis I would have imagined that the trial for rape would have been more central and the play would have focused on different attitudes towards that. I failed to get engaged by the rich smug characters so it was an interesting night, but not a play that left me with much. I agree with you too. I found it really underwhelming, but have been interested to read other people's comments on here who did get more out of it. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Apr 9, 2017 7:04:21 GMT
This is an uncomfortable watch. Self absorbed arrogant people with no real empathy for the people they are representing. It actually made me wonder if the Bullingdon set carried on like this with no real clue what it is like to be poor.....and then the lack of sympathy for the rape victim made me think about general hardening of opinions in society in general....and then it made me realise I didn't care about these characters at all....so am I one of these people in reverse?
Play incredibly muddled and random plot points thrown in for good measure here and there, so quite frustrating! Felt like there were 3 plays trying to get out of this and none of them emerged. The reviews are far too generous.
On the plus side.....the baby is incredibly cute, made me sharpen up my feminist options (what are you doing women in play?) and it was quite nice trying to choose your favourite light fitting (why did they choose such a horrible one?!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Apr 9, 2017 11:53:17 GMT
The baby is, apparently, Nina Raine's!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 9, 2017 12:05:08 GMT
Given the positive reaction to the baby (which I share), maybe he/she should be put up for a best actor/actress award!
|
|
181 posts
|
Post by eatbigsea on Apr 9, 2017 13:01:24 GMT
This is an uncomfortable watch. Self absorbed arrogant people with no real empathy for the people they are representing. It actually made me wonder if the Bullingdon set carried on like this with no real clue what it is like to be poor.....and then the lack of sympathy for the rape victim made me think about general hardening of opinions in society in general....and then it made me realise I didn't care about these characters at all....so am I one of these people in reverse? I thought that was one of the points that the play tried to make, but didn't (or at least not adequately). Tim was not supposed to be representing the rape victim, he represents the Crown. I thought the actor portrayed the dilemma that many barristers feel quite well, he wanted to be sympathetic, but the role that he plays in the court system prevented him from doing that. Most barristers I know are like that. The ones who do crime tend to be extremely cynical about human nature and the defendants, however. There are some reforms coming into the court system: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39319495 but I think more are needed. i absolutely agree on your other points, three plays in one and definitely loved the baby. I wonder how long s/he stays around, on average. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Apr 9, 2017 15:27:37 GMT
The baby is, apparently, Nina Raine's! I wondered if it might be Adam James' baby, but possibly a shade old. Ah, acting, too old for roles while still an infant! |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 14, 2017 5:05:03 GMT
Saw and enjoyed this last night; not sure what this might say about me, but steve summed it up succinctly in his phrase:
"Smug detached lawyers learn life lessons that turn out to be schematic, didactic and problematic. Fab cast redeems this, making it a thoroughly worthwhile night."
The schematic plot was the greatest issue for me as after a while you not only knew what was coming but it became increasingly incredible, and with it the sense of detachment, but it was nevertheless riveting and I had no difficulty staying awake - just as well given my front row seat!
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Apr 15, 2017 17:12:06 GMT
Saw it this afternoon, and while I was never bored, the rape trial plot seemed more involving than the main story, which seemed to be a rehash of something This Life or 30something would have used, but as Parsley says, that was forgotten in the second act, even the accusation of rape in that act is pretty much glossed over to wind things up (although 90-120 minutes of a rape trial on stage would probably be too much to take. )
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 15, 2017 17:48:51 GMT
Frivolous question but I've been wondering: I found Ben Chaplin very creepy (not sure he was meant to be) and was puzzled by his very long hair. I know barristers wear wigs in court but would a real barrister actually wear his hair so long - and in so an unkempt a style?
|
|
2,058 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Apr 15, 2017 19:08:57 GMT
I didn't really think it was that long - I would have thought a wig would have covered it. It would have been worse if he had a mullet - looking at his hair, I was more suspicious that he'd been at the Just For Men to be honest.
|
|
181 posts
|
Post by eatbigsea on Apr 15, 2017 23:19:03 GMT
Frivolous question but I've been wondering: I found Ben Chaplin very creepy (not sure he was meant to be) and was puzzled by his very long hair. I know barristers wear wigs in court but would a real barrister actually wear his hair so long - and in so an unkempt a style? Oh yes. Quite a few barristers have fairly long, unkempt hair. Michael Mansfield QC is a good example. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 18, 2017 11:47:06 GMT
Worth knowing for anyone considering the top balcony, row S sides, apparently have almost no view thanks to the light fittings. Someone moaned to me today. Worth knowing indeed, though sorry your informant found out the hard way. Makes Friday Rush seats even better value if people can book them, but surely the NT has a responsibility to check just how restricted the view is once a production is ready? |
|
1,347 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Apr 22, 2017 16:07:35 GMT
Fantastic performances of a flawed, but very enjoyable, play.
|
|
