Absolute Hell - NT

I was speaking to a friend about this last night and he revealed that he initially thought it was publicity for a 40s photograph exhibition.

I don't know how well this is selling but I thought it was an interesting comment.

tmesis my thoughts exactly.

As the reviews were diametrically opposed to my view of an early preview was tempted to see it again to see if the cuts had somehow worked a miracle.

Now you have saved me the bother.

Well. Half the audience upped and left during the interval so the response at the end of the show was a bit muted. I think I saw Kate Fleetwood say something like "thanks for staying to the end everyone" jokingly to Charles Edwards during the bows.

Not quite sure why they left in droves really, I thought it was a very entertaining evening and the set was wonderful. I'm going to have to read up on any changes a bit more though as the play is a bit fruity for the most part so I can imagine how shocking it must have been back in the day. It's all very heightened and with the talent on display, I think it was intentional for everyone to be a bit OTT in their delivery and performance which I didn't mind. Having said that, Charles Edwards was absolutely smashing, a really wonderful performance which I think worked well with the campery elsewhere. I do think Fifi the prostitute might have stepped into the wrong play though, I think she was auditioning for a Yaël Farber production. I hope she got the part. I thought Kate Fleetwood was miscast but I did admire her acting choice to pitch her performance as a 1940s Petula Gordeno and thought Jonathan Slinger as Maurice was also very good. He does that 'nastiness beneath the surface' thing so well. One minute you're laughing at him, the next you're taking a deep breath.

Oh and when they decide to revive 'Cabaret' again, Sinead Matthews would be a glorious Sally Bowles.

I'll bet they all needed a wee after the show though.

I have seen some shows where my time was definitely far more valuable than the dross I was having to sit through, and I'm not a lawyer or a wealthy person or even a parsley type, who genuinely thinks about my time in terms of its worth, but some shows really are that bad. I've only left at the interval maybe three times in the last 15 years though, so I do have an extremely high tolerance for theatre that is merely subpar.

That's all true of course. Plus, if you leave after the first act, you miss Aaron Heffernan's teeny tiny nipples in the second half.

Also, for anyone who saw the last run with Dame Judi, did they have the . . . 

That's in the original script. It was cut out the TV version. Not sure about the 1995 production though.

Oooh did you have glasses on?

It’s sold dreadfully by the way

That's my point, really - you ought to sit through it for their sake, really. It must be so disheartening. The only time I've felt tempted to leave was the recent Woyzeck, but I was doing 3 plays in 2 days with weak glasses, it was a sunny afternoon, I had a rubbish seat and I still had Killology and the night bus to Liverpool to go. I thought, might as well stay, it might get better (it didn't, but I've seen plays that have).

Just adding my two cents to the discussion here.  I regret to say that I am one of the very many who have left at the interval.  And I did feel bad for the actors who were doing their job, albeit following directions often leading them to overact and very professionally working with a script that perhaps isn't flawless to begin with, but... I chose to leave nonetheless.  

Was it because I felt that my time is too precious for that? I had only left at the interval once before, and that was because the venue was freezing cold and I was feverish... so I'm clearly not that type of person.  

Was it because I am generally unable to stay focussed and can only seek instant gratification?  I would say that my "track record" - for lack of a better expression - as a theatre goer over the years suggests otherwise.  

I chose to leave because after one hour and a half I had not felt any sort of genuine interest for any one of those characters or honestly cared for their stories.  I'd got tired of their constant rambling, endless drinking, superficial interactions, brief conversations leading nowhere, their repeatedly leaving the club only to come back minutes later...  when that final scene came at the end of act one, to me it felt as the play could have ended there and then.  It had not gone anywhere for me, emotionally or intellectually, and there was nothing to suggest that it would in the second act. 

Perhaps I have missed out on a major revelation in act two, perhaps I would have caught a glimpse of genius at some point... but personally I found that first hour and a half unpleasant and unrewarding, and so I chose not to sit through what I feared would be another hour and a half of a similarly uninteresting (to me) affair.  

I saw the matinee today, and it was interesting to see something with such mixed responses, I was glad to say that id be more in the "i enjoyed it" camp.

The play reminded me of The Wild Party; lots of stories going on at the same time, unfortunately, I was a little annoyed by Hugh(? the main male character) constantly babbling and interrupting his own sentences it did get a little grating, wasn't sure if that was the writing or direction. I loved Christine and wanted to spend more time with her.

While not an awful lot happens, it could be a little shorter but i didn't think there was anything that was dead text. I thought the set for it was really nice, an awfully large cast for the show though! cant imagine the costs for that, and perhaps the boredom for some of the silent roles.