|
|
Post by Forrest on Dec 28, 2021 12:01:43 GMT
I noticed this doesn't have a thread, so thought I'd rectify that injustice. Alistair Mcdowell writing for Ria Zmitrowics and Fisayo Akinade sounds absolutely brilliant. I have been looking forward to this since it was originally announced, and it has been such a long wait. More on the Court website, HERE. (Sorry, no clue how to do the fancy embedding thing people on here often use.) If anyone is interested in booking early, the Court has surprisingly opened its Monday tickets for advance booking too. Just booked for Valentine's day (coincidentally, I swear!). Also, they have an ongoing offer for £10 off AA and A seats with a code. Not sure if I'm allowed to post that here, but happy to share privately if anyone needs it. |
|
1,866 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Dec 29, 2021 10:14:54 GMT
Pretty annoyed by that code to be honest. This is the second time recently the Court have sent out a code for a big discount long after I booked tickets - and I'm a member too.
So I've learnt my lesson and I'm not going to book in advance with them which I'm sure wasn't what they wanted but there we go.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 29, 2021 12:24:40 GMT
Got a 12 pound Monday ticket, thanks!
Unless it's a big name show or an upstairs production, I dont really bother buying a ticket beforehand by any great degree.
|
|
74 posts
|
Post by ruperto on Jan 26, 2022 8:02:03 GMT
So has anyone else seen this yet? I caught it last night - I think it was the second preview.
This one left me a bit baffled TBH. I probably shouldn’t say too much as I don’t want to spoil it for others, but suffice to say that it combines several genres (it starts quite effectively as a period drama/horror).
If I’m honest, it didn’t really work for me, but it got a pretty good response from what looked like a full house, some of whom seemed to treat it like a comedy (maybe it is a comedy?!).
To me, it felt slightly hobbled by the fact that it only has a cast of four - for something so ambitious, it all felt a little ‘minimalist’ at times, though maybe that’s just me. Some good use of sound and video.
It’s certainly different!
It was two hours all in - finished at 9.30pm on the dot. Last night that included a 25-minute interval that came after only about 35 minutes. Fair play to the Royal Court - after everything that’s happened with Covid, I don’t begrudge them an opportunity to boost their coffers with some bar cash…
|
|
1,866 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Jan 26, 2022 9:48:28 GMT
It is going to be hard to really say much about this that does not contain spoilers so click if you want to read. {Spoiler}{Spoiler - click to view}This isn’t the play that’s described. The setting and even the theme in the blurb isn’t at all a reflection of the play.
Yes, the play begins in an asylum in 1863 and most of the first act, very short 35 minutes or so, takes place then but the actual story then becomes a time travelling .. caper isn’t the word as it isn’t treated as lighthearted but it jumps from sometime BC to the 1300s to the 1900s pulling characters along with it (sometimes literally).
Honestly I still have no idea what to really make of it. Parts of it just reminded me of Highlander, an immortal living throughout centuries. Brooke tells a story at one point of being trapped in a coffin underwater and drowning repeatedly. Unable to die, just carrying on
But then she has *some* control over her powers, over her nature and she can at times move through time by choice and bring people with her or banish people. It’s a bit inconsistent. Did she ever have control but lost it as a result of choosing not to remember or did she never have control?
The final monologue is long and goes for a summary and I think there is a lot to like there. It all felt a bit flat for me (granted first night of previews) but if Brooke/The Woman has been on a journey that we see through the play, it feels delivered a bit perfunctory. I am unsure if it's the performance or direction there.
Some solid work on light and sound, light in particular as Brooke uses her powers (or they come to the front). Annoyingly I was in second row stalls and unable to read the captions at the back which made some of the time periods harder to follow and for me reduced the moment when we are to realise Ellen and the writer are connected.
I enjoyed the evening, I like the central concept (though not original) of a person in paintings from so many time periods being an immortal of some sort but that's very much not the play I was expecting. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 26, 2022 15:22:47 GMT
I've just seen on Twitter that the production photos released contain spoilers.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 26, 2022 17:04:19 GMT
One of the things in the spoiler post above is my absolute worst phobia so I think I’ll skip this! Thank god for reading spoilers.
|
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 27, 2022 16:56:02 GMT
Well, having seen the 3rd preview last night I can't enlighten anyone and indeed am waiting for someone to tell me what on earth (they thought) was happening. The start was quite promising but after that the play - if that's what it was - seemed to degenerate into a random series of scenes with time shifting back and forth. I'm sure I nodded off at times but don't think that made any difference, other than sparing me some of it, as it seemed to continue in much the same vein for the whole 2 hours. So I've probably dismissed a work others will hail as a masterpiece. On the plus side, I tried something new before I could be influenced by anyone else's opinion; I gave a generous second chance to the writer of the appalling Pomona and the play was only 2 hours long, finishing as ruperto found on the dot of 9.30 pm |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 28, 2022 14:48:20 GMT
Well, having seen the 3rd preview last night I can't enlighten anyone and indeed am waiting for someone to tell me what on earth (they thought) was happening. The start was quite promising but after that the play - if that's what it was - seemed to degenerate into a random series of scenes with time shifting back and forth. I'm sure I nodded off at times but don't think that made any difference, other than sparing me some of it, as it seemed to continue in much the same vein for the whole 2 hours. So I've probably dismissed a work others will hail as a masterpiece. On the plus side, I tried something new before I could be influenced by anyone else's opinion; I gave a generous second chance to the writer of the appalling Pomona and the play was only 2 hours long, finishing as ruperto found on the dot of 9.30 pm Excellent. If you thought Pomona was "appalling" and didn't like this I'm even more excited to see it. |
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jan 28, 2022 15:23:28 GMT
Gee, thanks, wiggymess: so glad you're benefiting from my lost 2 hours and £. Not surprisingly The Stage has given it 4 stars. Emperor's new clothes imo! |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jan 28, 2022 15:26:29 GMT
Gee, thanks, wiggymess: so glad you're benefiting from my lost 2 hours and £. Not surprisingly The Stage has given it 4 stars. Emperor's new clothes imo! Or just a subjective opinion, but who needs those in these times eh? |
|
74 posts
|
Post by ruperto on Jan 28, 2022 16:29:26 GMT
Clive Davis’s one-star review in The Times is quite entertaining. I don’t agree with all of his assessment, but where he is absolutely bang-on is where he says there was “lots of unexpected laughter from the audience,” even during the dark opening section, and that he had “no idea why”.
That’s exactly what I thought. When I was there, it was a bit like everyone was a bit drunk or something. The young guy next to me was pissing himself with laughter pretty much all the way through. But I don’t think it was supposed to be that funny, was it?! I hope I don’t get that lot when I next go and see something by Ibsen or Sarah Kane…
I can’t work out whether it was a) directed in a way that inappropriately accentuated the comedy, b) deliberately written as a sort-of comedy, which - bearing in mind what a mash-up of different elements it was already - would be quite a brave thing to add into the rich mix, or c) something they’re putting in the drinks at the Royal Court (I’m joking about that last point, but whatever that audience was on when I went and Clive Davis went, I want some of it…)
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 28, 2022 16:33:15 GMT
It sounds very much Marmite, with two, three and four star reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Feb 2, 2022 11:50:00 GMT
Hmmm...I liked this in the way that I'd enjoy a weird fantasy film or similar - just switching my brain off and going with the flow, enjoying the spectacle and surprises. But I don't think that makes for a good play. Good performances, and I liked the dialogue, just not sure it added up to very much and I've no idea what was the writer trying to say about the world, or the human condition, or anything. There were some well drawn characters, like the bossy spiritualist woman at the start, the guy who left uni when his research got too weird to be academic, the Welsh woman who takes Brook in. I liked those, and was more interested in the idea of people's lives being touched in different ways by this mythical(?) character, than in the Brook character herself. I certainly wasn't sitting there feeling bored, but I have no idea what to take away, if anything. I was one of the people who found it funny, mostly to do with the anachronisms and us knowing things the characters didn't. So, I found it quite engrossing as a spectacle and a novelty, with some good effects and engaging characters, which was enough for an enjoyable evening (and maybe that's enough sometimes?), but it didn't make me think or show me anything memorable. I was sitting near the front, stage right, and I'd recommend avoiding that area. I didn't even know there were captions on the back wall (though the dates were also projected onto the wall stage left), and I also got dazzled a lot by lighting effects, which was uncomfortable but I think would be fine from any other area of the theatre. {Spoiler - click to view}
If your main character is immortal, then what kind of journey can that person go on in the course of a play? Death and risk and seeing events in the context of a human lifetime are quite significant things that help us identify with characters. I get that this was trying to say something about loss and loneliness and being an outsider, but I don't think it said enough.
The warrior guy was very odd (though led to a few nice comic moments), and the love story made me think of those films with multiple superheroes from different franchises (not in a good way).
Also, was this just me misunderstanding, or was the researcher guy the son of the Welsh woman and we were supposed to assume he drowned himself?
|
|
1,866 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Feb 2, 2022 12:29:38 GMT
I was sitting near the front, stage right, and I'd recommend avoiding that area. I didn't even know there were captions on the back wall (though the dates were also projected onto the wall stage left), and I also got dazzled a lot by lighting effects, which was uncomfortable but I think would be fine from any other area of the theatre. Good they added another dates projection, that was the thing I emailed about when they asked for early feedback. As to your spoiler.
{Spoiler - click to view}Yes, the researcher was the son of the Welsh woman - but I totally missed any suggestion that he might have drowned himself. Otherwise, I think you and I might be pretty much in agreement on this one.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 2, 2022 12:46:33 GMT
So that's two recent Royal Court plays that might have worked better as TV?
|
|
|
|
Post by jr on Feb 2, 2022 12:47:47 GMT
I saw this on Monday. I thought it was interesting, it has up and downs and probably would benefit from not having and interval. I don't understand the * or **** reviews; as with most plays is neither too good or too bad. Actors were good, sound and light very good and different. Not sure abut the direction though, I found the rhythm of the play a bit uneven.
My main issue was with the final monologue. I barely could follow it, not sure if it was the delivery or the writing but I found it confusing and did not make a lot of sense. Not sure it adds much to the play.
In any case, I would recommend it if you'd like to see something out of the ordinary (though not extraordinary).
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Feb 2, 2022 15:42:50 GMT
So that's two recent Royal Court plays that might have worked better as TV? I'm not sure. I think Rare Earth Mettle felt like a story that would have worked better on TV. This one was more like Is God Is, in that it took tropes from film and tv and used them in a theatrical way. I think there was a lot to like about it, but no real meaning or message. I agree with jr that the final monologue was a bit confusing. |
|
63 posts
|
Post by pledge on Feb 3, 2022 22:53:03 GMT
I absolutely LOVED Pomona a few years ago, one of the most dazzling and gripping new plays I’d ever seen - so I went with goodwill and high expectations; and while this script is arguably even more ambitious and original, it’s also far less focussed – while it’s hampered by one of the clunkiest and clumsiest productions I’ve seen in years. In the press the performances, lighting, sound and design have all garnered high praise – but I thought they were all frankly dire; the whole thing felt like a scrappy First Year Drama School production (no offence, honest) with the actors Having a Go at characters they didn’t really inhabit and weren’t at all suited to. I’m sure the long final speech looks great on the page (there might aswell be a neon sign flashing “Pay Attention – Important Fine Writing!”) but even sitting a few rows back I could hardly make out what Ria Zmitrowicz was actually saying. I involuntarily guffawed at a few ridiculous moments – a fur-clad Caveman rushing on and off (presumably back to the set of 1 Million Years BC), a supposedly invincible and heavily armed Knight being bested by a bloke with a small knife in one of the least convincing fights ever staged (and I endured Trevor Nunn’s Wars of the Roses which came complete with sword-under-the-armpit style coarse acting). It seems to me that the 4 and 5 star raves have all reviewed what the play aspires to, rather than what it has actually managed. Above all, where Pomona was marked by a continuing taut thread of skin-tingling tension – a really hard thing to accomplish – with its shapeless and seemingly random to-and-froing between blank characterless settings (indicated merely by titles) eras and characters, this seemed to lack any dramatic tension at all. There are some striking witty and perceptive lines, and the teeming ideas are undoubtedly interesting - even potentially fascinating - but they belong on the page: this material would make a far better fantasy novel (where they could develop and you as a reader could live with and ponder them) than stage play: the pictures in your head will always be better than anything but the most lavish stage production, which this emphatically is not...
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Feb 5, 2022 11:31:23 GMT
Alistair MacDowall was quoted in pre-publicity for this saying something like his goal is to to tell stories that can only be told by theatre. I can't find the quote now, but it's ironic that so many comments here are about whether this story would be better told on tv, film or in a fantasy novel. I suppose that means the play has failed on its own terms. I agree it had a lot of flaws, but I like the fact that it was trying something different. I disagree with pledge about the acting and production, and found it enjoyable and somewhat impressive, despite a lot that didn't work.
|
|
1,866 posts
|
Post by Dave B on Feb 8, 2022 17:16:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Feb 10, 2022 23:24:03 GMT
The first half was a lot stronger than the second half. I certainly wasn't expecting certain elements to be incorporated into this but I thought it was well written and carried good intentions. The set was well built with all all the projections helping carry the narrative. I definitely felt quite scared at some points so the performances are certainly commendable too. I agree that the last monologue felt slightly out of place but when reading the playtext, it doesn't? Maybe a future reincarnation will address this issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by bgarde on Feb 24, 2022 17:35:39 GMT
I also really enjoyed the first half and wished that story thread has continued to dominate. Some of the time travelling was fine, but the warrior sequences were poor ("shut your hole").
I don't think Ria Zmitrowicz was the correct choice and carried the necessary depth for such a part. I didn't mind the final monologue and found it a little moving, even. Ramie Ayola was very good, definitely the highlight, and managed to cut through to make some genuinely interesting and moving moments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forrest on Feb 24, 2022 22:07:36 GMT
I liked this, but the friend who came with me hated it with such (undisguised) intensity and passion that he sort of ruined the experience for me too: I have the feeling that it was my kind of play, but I simply wasn't focussed enough. Which is a shame, because I thought the actors were great and it seemed to have potential. But I was so worried about the friend in question falling asleep and starting to snore in the auditorium (which sounds funny now, but was less so in the dark of the Court!), that my focus completely withered by the final speech.
Moral of the story: I'm definitely seeing the next Alistair McDowall play alone.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 24, 2022 23:24:19 GMT
When I go to the theatre with friends I'll sometimes book seats apart for that reason!
|
|
