2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Mar 3, 2016 21:32:10 GMT
True, I mean that's what we love about theatre right, that it's right in front of you, it's live, it's almost touchable, you feel involved, part of it.
|
|
5,095 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 3, 2016 23:36:38 GMT
I saw this, this afternoon and I think it is a very safe assumption to make that The Lord Chamberlain would be doing cartwheels in his grave!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 11:55:47 GMT
I'm glad I managed to nab some Friday Rush tickets yesterday. The husband is a Drama teacher, and loves Sarah Kane's plays.
It's proving very popular though, all tickets were gone in four minutes!
|
|
270 posts
|
Post by littlesally on Mar 5, 2016 12:30:40 GMT
In over 40 years of theatregoing I have rarely found myself unable to find the good in everything I see. Until I saw this.
|
|
184 posts
|
Post by caa on Mar 10, 2016 22:05:44 GMT
I saw this last night, I wasn't aware of anyone fainting or walk outs, I was left some what annoyed by the way Katie Mitchell has put her trade marks into this production and I left the theatre non the wiser about what Sarah Kane was trying to say, having seen many of her plays this was a first for me.
Also when on earth are the NT going to sort out the queuing for the Dorfman cloakroom after the show ends it really is poor
|
|
76 posts
|
Post by bingomatic on Mar 11, 2016 9:33:29 GMT
Also when on earth are the NT going to sort out the queuing for the Dorfman cloakroom after the show ends it really is poor Agreed. Especially annoying as I was asked to put my bag in the cloakroom due to the possibility of someone fainting and hitting it (I was in the raised seats in the stalls). The queue was horrendous when I managed to escape. |
|
106 posts
|
Post by trapdoor on Mar 11, 2016 12:24:21 GMT
Has the 'horror' been lessened in this? I was expecting it to be far more brutal and graphic (don't get me wrong, I'm no sadist and found it difficult to watch) but kind of expected more to warrant the hype. Unless hype is what it is...
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Mar 11, 2016 13:11:15 GMT
Also when on earth are the NT going to sort out the queuing for the Dorfman cloakroom after the show ends it really is poor Agreed. Especially annoying as I was asked to put my bag in the cloakroom due to the possibility of someone fainting and hitting it (I was in the raised seats in the stalls). The queue was horrendous when I managed to escape. Was this to protect your bag or the potential fainter?! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2016 10:07:30 GMT
Whilst I can appreciate the quality of art when I see it, I'm not sure I would ever choose to see this again. In your face theatre, I've decided is not for me. I was squirming and squinting at a couple of points, and looked around to see the people around looking very nonplussed. Also, two older ladies sat behind me walked out not long after it began.
All I can say is, that at least I knew what to expect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 8:25:01 GMT
Hmmm, yes, well. Normally I'd be complaining about KM's poor lighting fetish which means even in the front rows you can't see anything on stage properly, but I didn't really mind with this...
So last night we had an actual vomiter, which added appropriate surround-smell as well as sound to the event; the clanking of the poor staff cleaning it up also blended in quite well. I hope they are getting paid extra for dealing with all of this.
It happened early on when I think something was happening with a tongue but I don't know as I had my eyes closed - which is one of my objections to this production, which is that I can't assess it properly since I wasn't looking at the stage for a lot of it. The kind of over the top slasher brutality it goes in for seemed completely pointless and got in the way of any point the play was trying to make - if there was one, which I'm not convinced about; there was no pretence at exploring the psychological or even physical effects of violence, it was just a series of horrible things happening to people. I closed my eyes because after all the PR I was hyper-aware of the possibility of not coping with it, but actually it probably wasn't particularly affecting because it was so stupid - more people were laughing than fainting.
Second main objection is that I felt the cast were being exploited to an unnecessary degree, though I assume and hope they were partners in developing it, chose that approach and could have said no to anything; like the violence, less is more and things become more intense if you imply and half show rather than just chuck everything out there.
Overall - if it hadn't been staged in so OTT a way, I'd probably have been bored for a lot of it. (In particular, I did wonder at one point why I was sitting there watching someone ponderously count up to 50...). It just seemed pretty pointless; no idea if that's the fault of the play or the production or a bit of both.
But as I said, I was deliberately not watching for good chunks of it, so I inevitably missed a lot. I did think there were some lovely, touching, tender moments.
|
|
38 posts
|
Post by quine on Apr 1, 2016 8:43:40 GMT
So last night we had an actual vomiter, which added appropriate surround-smell as well as sound to the event; the clanking of the poor staff cleaning it up also blended in quite well. Luckily the sound covered the cleaning though there was a lot of rummaging around with a torch as I think something else was lost apart from the contents of the poorly audience member's stomach. I did find myself bored at times - not Matthew Tennyson's fault but it was during two of his moments. As ever Michelle Terry was excellent - truly one of the finest actresses on the stage. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 1, 2016 9:22:11 GMT
I have wondered how a theatre would deal with this eventuality but as Abby says perhaps this was the play for it since it kinda fitted in, pity for the staff and surrounding audience members. Think I was probably wise in the end to give this one a miss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 9:59:37 GMT
I have wondered how a theatre would deal with this eventuality but as Abby says perhaps this was the play for it since it kinda fitted in, pity for the staff and surrounding audience members. Think I was probably wise in the end to give this one a miss. The affected person managed to stagger out so it was in the aisle near the door and not as disruptive (or splashy) as it could have been. I was sitting quite far right in the stalls and he was in one of the side seats; I spotted him looking pretty distressed and hoped he would leave before he fainted. I think he may have fainted and then been sick as there was a thump, shortly followed by some retching. Poor sod. As Quine says, he then came back in (still looking upset) and crawled around on the floor a bit looking for something. Suspect he won't be remembering it as one of his greatest theatrical nights out. That was probably more info than anyone needed... |
|
106 posts
|
Post by trapdoor on Apr 1, 2016 10:58:05 GMT
You lost me at 'splashy'...
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 1, 2016 15:26:43 GMT
That was probably more info than anyone needed... It has most efficiently answered my wonderings! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 19:25:00 GMT
"Being in love is like being in Auschwitz" wrote Roland Barthes, a phrase both provocative and catching the extremity of those in love. Kane wrote the play as a response to the provocation and Mitchell, in turn, responds to Kane's provocation by turning it full circle. Two of our most forthright women in theatre, collaborating across life and death, one pushing the other whilst adapting to them, was thrilling to watch. And in the National Theatre, two theatremakers who have been in the top handful of our creative exports across Europe, in the British National Theatre this time, not exiled in Warsaw or Berlin or Amsterdam.
It's been a couple of weeks since I saw this and I still don't feel able to write about it other than saying that it's in the top echelon of productions I've seen.
In lieu of a review a quote from Kane's 'Crave'.
"If you died it would be like my bones had been removed. No one would know why, but I would collapse.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 21:19:55 GMT
"Being in love is like being in Auschwitz" wrote Roland Barthes See, I know I'm taking this out of context but this makes me quite angry. It's just a stupid glib offensive soundbite that minimises the unspeakable horror suffered by people just like us, who were snatched out of normal life and sent to hell, most of whom were murdered and had their bodies desecrated. Being in love isn't like being in Auschwitz. Only people who don't know anything about Auschwitz or daft teenagers trying to make an impression would say something so monumentally stupid. If that really is the inspiration for the play it goes some way to explaining why the play itself is adolescent and meaningless. Sorry for the rant... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 22:35:31 GMT
Kane found the phrase repugnant (per Mark Ravenhill)*, sorry I thought the word 'provocative' covered that but maybe not. I doubt adolescents would get past a few sentences of Barthes in any case, post modernists aren't known for their writing down for the youth....
Kane had taken the phrase and used the melding of the idea of love in a concentration camp to create the play. Mitchell makes that more awful by emphasising the violence but also finds Kane's words and actions fighting that making it beautiful by showing that love is stronger.
That's hardly adolescent, although I suppose some might find it too idealistic. It was interesting seeing the reactionary critics (Treneman, Letts) behaving like, well, reactionaries, seeing only surface and missing completely the point of being shown the violence, that we can, will and do defeat it by our refusing to deny our humanity in facing it.
I find that beautiful, and moving and very meaningful.
* It was later, after the initial outrage, that she came to realise that, past the deliberately inflammatory surface, Barthes was talking about the 'loss of self', deliberately using an irrational comparison. The play itself hides its message behind what some might see as inflammatory surface (see Letts, Treneman etc.).
|
|
