The Birthday Party

This is possible. I tried to get a rush seat just after 10am, but all were in other users baskets. I kept refreshing as I know from previous experience that this works and after a few minutes a seat came up. It might have been an unsold dayseat, but that would have been quite a quick reallocation.

I thought this was really great. Tense, unnerving, but also darkly funny and sometimes moving. I saw the recent runs of The Caretaker and No Man's Land, and for me, this chimed with me far more than the other two. It also helps that it seemed to have what was closer to a cohesive and intriguing narrative.

The acting was uniformly excellent. If I'm being picky I might say that Stephen Manghan's accent occasionally seemed to falter, but his delivery was great especially his pairing with Tom Vaughan-Lawlor.

I loved the Quay Brothers' stylised, gothic, slightly run-down design, and the interesting use of light and sound. I'm not sure if the little touches (flames, torches, netting, etc) are in the script or not, but they worked wonderfully.

I also really lucked out with my seats. Me and my other half were sat at the very back of the stalls. Just before the play began, someone asked if we would like to swap seats with them; far closer to the front! Turns out it was director Ian Rickson, who was hoping to see the play from the back. So glad to be able to see the play closer to the action. So, on the small chance he (or others connected with the play) read this forum; thanks so much!

All in all, a solid 4 stars, maybe a smidge more.

I'm not sure I really got it in one go. I'm Quite tempted to go again.

I saw it yesterday and if I'm honest I was a little let down. The actors were all very good and all had strong performances, I especially like Zoe Wanamaker and Toby Jones, but maybe it is just me but Pinter seems a but overrated no the fact that none of it makes sense just doesn't really sit well with me. At the end of the show I felt lots of people just were quite baffled as well as me and were let feeling a bit cold. You may not think that I'm just not clever for getting it but it just seems a little dare I say I say lazy to write something that has no clear meaning to it. As well there were a few humours lines but I did not really find it that funnyat all. Yes I have a theoriy about what happened but it was all so odd.
Ok my ramble out th way I did really like Toby Jones Performance and just found my self watching what he was doing and how he was the character. Stephen Mangans performance was also very good and a nice different role to see him in. Zoe Wanamaker was also very watchable with a nice accent from the times and good delivery. Also really Tom Vaughan-Lawlor and his change from reserved to intimidating. Liked Peter Wight and Pearl Mackie but they didn't have much to there characters . Also sat front row was very good but my this is a very spittty performance from Toby Jones so was worried I would be in the splash zone.
The set was also nice along with the lighting and sound but for me I feel like Pinterest I still the emperors new clothes and everybody says they like it because it is a classic and they say they liked it to be intelligent. Oh well this is all my opinion and that is all.

Pinter was amazing when acting in his own plays. He was "wonderfully clear" as lonlad says but also wonderfully free in sending every moment off in a different direction. He was exhilarating to watch and listen to.

It is all well trying to tell me how it makes sense but I just feel Pinter is really pretentious and only 'intellectual ' people get it and if you don't you are just dumb. This is a bit like Stoppard and feels elitist to me and that is not what I think theatre should be. When I was leaving I got the feeling and heard lots of people didn't get it and no one seemed to really love it.

I dunno - I saw this yesterday, having not seen it since I was a teenager, and it really felt like a period piece, a play from the mid 20thc whose reference points are even earlier (Kafka, or the rundown, menacing seaside stories of Graham Greene or Patrick Hamilton). Perhaps they are being too reverent, but I felt it needed some vim. Frankly, I think most episodes of Inside Number 9 knock the socks off Pinter - and have the ability to leave me in tears, feeling sick, or wanting to wash my brain out, which I've never got from Pinter.

Probably not - he was such a fixture on the school curriculum for our generation, but Pinter couldn't have happened without Beckett, Genet etc. There's such an engaging three-dimensionality, a depth and humanity in the League/Inside No 9's work missing from Pinter or their contemporaries like Charlie Brooker.

Is expecting a certain level of intelligence from your audience elitist? Every playwright worth his/her salt expects that. Stoppard is not elitist - and neither is Pinter.

I have never seen GoT so what does that make me?

I agree, Pinter certainly not elitist. In fact some of his work is almost music hall. But Stoppard does expect a lot, except as I said in his best plays which I think are Arcadia and The Invention of Love. NT programmes always useful for Stoppard. In real life , however, Pinter was the one who almost refused to sign my text until his companions obviously expected him to whereas Stoppard, who was in a hurry, graciously waited for me to get a pen that would write properly! In my opinion Pinter became self important but Stoppard hasn’t. Just my opinion. 

Back in the late 50s or early 60s, so only at the start of his career, Pinter kicked my young uncle off a production of one of his plays (Questors theatre group, I think) because he asked questions about the text. I've never got the impression that Pinter was a pleasant human being.