Consent - NT Dorfman / Harold Pinter

During Hytner's tenure, only the absolute banker bet juggernauts transferred - War Horse, Curious Incident and One Man Two Guvnors. These were always going to be popular and the NT rightly wanted the spoils. The only "lowkey" transfers under Hytner were Democracy to Wyndhams and Alan Bennett's Untold Stories to the Duchess.

There is now maybe a move to letting commercial producers give a further life to those smaller Dorfman shows that are not obvious commercial blockbusters. And that's a good thing.

It is clear in Balancing Acts that Hytner was mortified by how badly the Great Britain transfer did. It just wasn't a good enough and crucially topical play by the time it went to cavernous TRH.

I hate to hate on Norris but I think the issue is that he isn't good at recognising what has a strong NT shelf life let alone strong commercial work but then again I think Hytner got lucky with a few long term transfers.

I suppose it might sell because it sounds as though it chimes with the #metoo movement.  I really didn't like it either.  I'm tempted to see it again to work out why everybody else gave it a standing ovation, but it probably isn't worth forking out good money for that purpose.

I was disappointed with this. I saw the first preview on Monday night at the Harold Pinter from the front row thanks to a £20 seat from Today Tix. (Perhaps a mod should add the Harold Pinter to the title of the thread?)

The stage is high but as there is no set - you don't miss anything and you get a lovely view of the lighting department from (the now defunct BHS).

I expected this to be a drama about what constitutes consent for sex, but the main legal drama played out briefly was very slightly done. If this play had been written by a man I suspect it would have been heavily criticised for being so dismissive of its main theme.

What we were left with was a bunch of unlikeable middle class people sitting around drinking, smoking weed, shouting, swearing and being unfaithful. I think performed almost entirely by a new cast (apart from Adam James) lead by Stephen Campbell Moore as Edward and Claudie Blakley as Kitty they were all "acting" for all they were worth. Lots of sinking to knees crying and jumping on furniture - to claim the high moral ground!

The black box set did not help the actors as the locations and time frames were unclear, so they seemed to be acting in a void.

Value for money from a £20 rush ticket if you have nothing better to do for an evening but you wouldn't miss anything if you gave it a miss. Mediocre play rather over acted.

Ps found the tube poster quote:

"The most blistering new play of the year"
NYTimes

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

This is superior in every possible way to BEGINNING - and the less said about the execrable MOOD MUSIC the better ---- the walkouts at the half said it all.

Saw this tonight, for the second time after catching this at the National.

Similar play to Frozen and the Writer, by which I mean were written by ladies, a man could never write those plays.

This was acted was much better than the Dorfman, to hit the nail on the head, I could also reference Mood Music.

As pointed out earlier the roles are very unlikeable in an uncomfortable and linear play, that is very enjoyable and has some great one-liners to boot, however laugh and moments and rape shouldn’t belong together, but oddly it works well here.

4 Stars

So I am late to Consent party so a few rambling thoughs below
Staging often felt like it should be in the round but worked well. Good ensemble piece but it has been marketed terribly.
If people think they are getting a drama about consent as a concept then they aren't. At best it touches on consent when a relationship breaks down but it really isn't the whole #metoo thinkpiece the posters say it is. I am also not entirely sure the section with a victim of rape (Heather Craney) and her trial entirely works. Craney's performance felt too much like a performance of a "messed up woman" whose lack of understanding of the legal system leads to a lack of conviction, but if she is so unreliable why did it go to trial? Raine seems to ignore the fact that if it got to trial in the first place it must have had compelling evidence?

To have the actual issue of Consent brushed over in favour of middle-class romantic entanglements seems insensitive. It is interesting and provokes moral outrage about victim representation in the court from the audience but the way it serves the story feels a bit contrived. In fact, at times the whole thing feels like a sexy new BBC drama about barristers that was rejected because Silk didn't do very well and because it is a play we just see the edited highlights that catch you up on each episode.

Adam James, Stephen Campbell-Moore and Claudie Blakeley are well cast. James plays the same character he always plays but does it well but Campbell-Moore and Blakely handle the sometimes melodramatic material as well. I thought Clare Foster's gurning Zara was miscast. Foster is a great comic actress (I loved her in Travesties) but this play isn't funny enough to play to her strengths and she is better in her serious scenes but the characters and scenarios often feel underwritten and rushed. Overall it was compelling evening but it was clearly a drama about relationships rather than consent. I think the marketing needs a rethink.

I would have been happy with a square, I think the throwing of the kettle rules out on stage seating

I actually quite enjoyed this for what it was. Great acting all around, and always great to see Clare Foster on stage. I could kinda see where it was going by the end of act one, but I felt it played out well.

Additional;

Much like Wiseau’s “The Room”, nothing indicates the passage of time. There’s a scene in the Act I finale at Christmas (there’s a tree), but I didn’t catch any other indications if it was summer earlier, or the last year, or what. Suddenly people just kind of reconciled/cheated/committed alleged sex crimes and stuff happened with no indication why/when. Very weird play.