Pity - Royal Court

Oh but of course

The forum is useless

Twitter is much more useful

For a guidance of quality

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Just watch this

www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/news/pity-royal-court-opening-night-rory-mullarkey_47156.html

He can’t even string a coherent sentence together

And what he says is meaningless

Very indicative of his play writing

Apparently Saint George

Took him three years of full time
Writing

🤣🤣🤣

You can do a degree in this time



“I wrote a play for the National Theatre called Saint George and the Dragon which took three years of nearly full-time work and was the most wrenching, frightening, thrilling, exposing, exhausting thing I’ve ever been involved with and I feel bonded by fire and blood forever to everyone who made that show with me.”



And MORE

From Time Out:

“Pity’ is a dark satire on the ever-present possibility of total societal collapse that also pokes mischievous holes in the very idea of conventional narratives, which Mullarkey doesn’t have a lot of time for. ‘When I’m watching a more conventional play, I can tell what’s going to happen five minutes in and then you’re sitting there for two hours,’ he says. ‘Our attention spans work a bit differently than perhaps they did in Ibsen’s day, so I wanted to write something that would feed that need for events that surprise, rather than being: no, theatre is a fenced off space where we have to build plays like we did 100 years ago.’

Most drama struggles to really convey the chaos of life. ‘Pity’ may actually exceed it”

What annoys me the most
Is the collusion of certain “media”
To boost the already large egos of these talentless people
Who have nothing to say
And devoid of any real ideas
Instead they are nurtured

Why is failure and bad work like this rewarded
In the arts sector

I think this writer is talented and interesting but his work has been exposed on the main stages too early in his career. St George might have been a hit in the Dorfman. The reviews for Pity could have been a bit more generous for the actors and designer. I wonder how much dramaturgical support Mullarkey has had. I also feel that he has written quite a lot in a short space of time which is why the quality of the thinking in the work is so poor. I blame the producers for this - they should be looking after young talent not damaging it. One consolation for Mullarkey may be that the young audience seemed to genuinely enjoy this so it may yet do well commercially. I hope so.

Oh boo. See, I really liked Wolf From The Door, and there was enough about St George And The Dragon that I didn't hate, but it does sound like his work might be steadily decreasing in quality. Still, only a few days before I get to judge this for myself, at least the hard part will be over then.

Some 3 and 4 star reviews coming through too so it's a proper Marmite show

I saw this last Friday with my young family (in their 20s not toddlers!) and I was pleasantly surprised that something I thought might be just too weird for any of us, young and (me) old alike, had us engaged with the messaging and caring about it enough to go the bar afterwards and argue about its merits and - to be sure - faults. It reminded me of Anthony Neilson's Wonderful World of Dissocia which for heaven's sake was 11 years ago and a reference totally lost on the children. The consensus was that it threw the kitchen sink at a load of cultural references, it moved on at a pace, didn't outstay its welcome and in the era of Trump and Brexit made us reflect on how mad the real world is and the world of theatre as a consequence can be. Family outings like this seldom disappoint because we are a gobby lot who like talking afterwards and this gave us all plenty to say. So for us a successful night out - star ratings don't really hack it because we all know how subjective they are but adding them up from the five of us for what it’s worth = 15*.

You do realise

The two are not mutually exclusive

And people post on forums AND Twitter

So I am not sure of your point

In fact If someone’s entire contribution

To social media

Is Twitter

It says a lot about them

Perhaps a discussion about why we post on forums belongs on another thread. I don’t consider my posts to be reviews. They are not intended to help other people make up their minds about what to see or avoid. They are purely a way of expressing my immediate thoughts on my experience of watching a play. If they were reviews I would spend more time on them, working them up until they were succinct and accurate representations of my experience. Sometimes I’ve been pointed in the direction of a play by comments on this forum - negative or positive. I’m drawn to plays because of the subject matter and would go to see a play that interests me regardless of reviews or any number of negative/positive posts or tweets.

Show report:
Running time: One hour forty no interval (probably a good thing.)
Dogs or other animals: No, but at one point actors pretend to be animals (not so great) or pretend they are walking dogs (quite fun.)
Loud noises: Tonnes, constantly, yes! If you have a thing about loud noises don't go.
Audience: Not at all full today. The audience seemed to arrive happy and leave unhappy.
Positives: Chloe Lambert's design was inventive, if, at times, troublesome and sound designer Pete Malkin did a couple of good things. I think Francesca Mills is a potential star - she has a lot of charisma, a grasp of comedy and did some very good physical work. Liked some of the early synchronised movement. Front of house staff (except for grouchy box office guy) were lovely. You are given the choice of the usual entrance or the dock entrance. We liked the dock entrance where you walked across the stage and could buy an ice cream and get a free tombola ticket if you so desire. The Royal Court is beautiful and I loved feeling the hug of the auditorium from the stage.
Negatives: Ah. I've seen three of Mullarkey's plays and I can't say on that evidence if he's a good writer or not. He must certainly be excellent at pitching ideas to get people willing to put them on and he has a certain confidence, but I've yet to see anything where he's created a character or had a believable or involving story arc - which he would probably disdain but, for me, watching a bunch of ciphers do unbelievable things is, well, not great. It reminded me of when my son was about twelve and he had that computer game Sims (?) where you were supposed to design a house and a family and have them do things. He would build outlandish things and then have disasters - the bins were constantly on fire and family members were hurtling out of windows. 'Pity' had that same childish nothing matters nihilism. The atrocities section was almost unbearable in its repetition and tedium.

I've been researching Arthur Miller for something and its interesting to see how much of his early life involved menial, manual labour type jobs and while we think of 'Death of a Salesman' as an early play, it was actually (depending on how you count them) approximately his tenth. His best writing tended to be rooted in his understanding of ordinary working people. His playwriting apprenticeship and experience of the real world was essential to his best work. I think if you are someone who has only been a student and then a writer, you may have less to say to audiences. Or at least to me.

I would give it one and a half stars because of some charm and inventiveness in the first ten minutes.

Mr Foxa said zero stars and asked if I could think of anything we'd ever seen that was worse. (I have been more bored or offended, so not the worst for me.) He thought it was insultingly bad.

The man in the row in front of us kept resting his head on the seat before him. He'd occasionally look up - see something ghastly - then rest his head back down.

It is a bit heart-breaking how much money was spent on this.

I'm not offended at all, Parsley, and I see what you are saying.

I suppose there are two things: part of the success of my unbelievably long marriage to Mr Foxa is to say sometimes, sure, okay, why not? He was intrigued - he had liked St George and the Dragon more than me and, despite the reviews for this, wanted to go. And the second thing, is that I am quite a curious person and a bit of a play collector. The Royal Court is easy for us to get to and I got my work done this morning, so...fine. And, oddly, I still had quite a pleasant afternoon.

I think you are in some ways more passionate and sensitive than I am - it is like you are in physical and mental anguish during a play you don't enjoy - whereas I am, I suppose, a bit like a a clock maker. If I don't enjoy it, I sit there trying to figure it out.

In terms of other people's reviews - I'm always interested to read your reviews and if you rave about something (such as 'Cuttin' it') then I sit up and take notice. And sometimes I agree with your pans, but sometimes I enjoy those plays a bit more :-)

Yes, and that's how I have always understood your reviews, Parsley!

AND I agree about 'Utility' that was a surprise hit with me - and I went to that just on a whim on my own one afternoon. I was totally absorbed. But I like real, sympathetic portrayals of people with a dilemma (that's not the only thing I like but that play certainly had it!) It was the exact opposite of 'Pity.'

Surprised to report that I really, really enjoyed this.

Tell us more, xanderl.

Over breakfast, Mr Foxa continued his complaints about the play, including the rather unique observation:

'And that postwoman saying she was off to do the afternoon post. Where in the country do they still have an afternoon post? It's arcane!'