2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on May 12, 2022 14:28:08 GMT
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jun 11, 2022 7:51:38 GMT
Anyone going to this soon? Feedback gratefully received as a complete blank canvas so far!!!!  |
|
1,504 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 11, 2022 16:46:29 GMT
All I have been hearing is hype about who Dave Davidson is or isn't (mainly jokey stuff.) Nothing about the play itself.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 11, 2022 20:54:34 GMT
Well written, very gripping, extremely funny in parts, but mad gimmicky.
No need to give the playwright a fake name, but all part of the gimmick/conceit of the play.
On train; more to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by vernongersh on Jun 11, 2022 21:12:46 GMT
looking forward to reading your thoughts on the play and anyone else who has seen it.
|
|
41 posts
|
Post by shakeel on Jun 11, 2022 22:17:06 GMT
Also on my way back. Thought it was pretty good (but not great) and interesting. Surprised me in a lot of ways, not all good. The cast were excellent. It’s really hard to talk about without spoilers, though, so: Spoilers for the first two minutes (I imagine all the reviews will give this bit away): {Spoiler - click to view}The play opens by telling you you’re not seeing the play that was advertised, and you’re actually watching “Rapture”, by Lucy Kirkwood. It is a play about the death of the Quilter family, a couple that died in December, and the Home Office have tried to block the Royal Court from producing it — hence the pseudonym and fake title. The RC is breaking the law by showing it to you, but it thinks it’s worth it.The play opens by telling you you’re not seeing the play that was advertised, and you’re actually watching “Rapture”, by Lucy Kirkwood. It is a play about the death of the Quilter family, a couple that died in December, and the Home Office have tried to block the Royal Court from producing it — hence the pseudonym and fake title. The RC is breaking the law by showing it to you, but it thinks it’s worth it.
And general thoughts (pretty spoiler free but you might want to go in blind): {Spoiler - click to view}That opening prepares you for something really dramatic and twisty — but it doesn’t deliver. By the end of it, it’s really not clear why they needed to dress it up in all this gimmickry at all, because it doesn’t really add anything to the story. It does jazz it up a bit, but it’s all a bit surface level. That’s especially true of the ending, which pushes things to farce in a way that kind of undermines everything that came before. Thematically and politically… there’s really nothing new here, nor a particularly insightful analysis of well-trod themes.
But! The core of the play is really lovely. The two main actors are both fantastic, with phenomenal chemistry. Their conversations are superbly written and the relationship is very believable. It’s also very funny. Even with all the framing stripped away, this core of the play would still work — which makes the framing even weirder. It’s a play trying very hard to be something bigger and flashier than I think it needs to be. Overall, though, I enjoyed it — and I’d recommend it. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 11, 2022 22:52:45 GMT
To add to that: The conceit of the play is that it’s a verbatim docu-drama of a couple who were secretly recorded for months via hidden recording devices placed in their home by someone likely connected to security services, that all the events really happened, and that the Royal Court are breaking the law by putting it on and have had to credit Lucy as Dave to protect her from prosecution. But it’s immediately apparent that isn’t true because why then announce the writer’s real name at the start of the play? It’s clear early on the Quilters don’t actually exist. The play takes themes of (light spoilers) conspiracy theories, mental illness, folie a deux, state control, state censorship, protest, people being radicalised online, hacking, the perils of smart technology which spies on us, and the degree to which the Internet and smart phones run our lives and how that can be exploited.
The aspect of state control and surveillance reminded me of James Graham’s superior Angry Brigade (a topic I believe he also covers in his upcoming TV show Sherwood).
It has nothing to do with identity theft and everything announced so far is fake, except the cast list. I did find it absolutely enthralling in the moment and it’s wonderfully written and acted, but the fundamental conceit didn’t work for me. I was really quite angry afterwards that they’d lied that it was a first time playwright, because what’s the point of that? Heavy spoilers: The character of Lucy Kirkwood narrates the play and Priyanga Burford who plays this role announces that the real Lucy Kirkwood was planning to narrate but lost her nerve at the last minute so she Priyanga (referred to onstage by her real name) has agreed to take her place. She sometimes has a script in her hand, frequently calls “line” and pretends to be struggling to know her lines. Presumably all part of the conceit that it’s “real” and that Lucy Kirkwood is in danger, but annoying to watch. This leads to an extremely dramatic fourth wall breaking ending, raising the question: are conspiracy theories contagious, or are they really out to get you? |
|
41 posts
|
Post by shakeel on Jun 11, 2022 23:11:59 GMT
I was really quite angry afterwards that they’d lied that it was a first time playwright, because what’s the point of that? Agreed on that. I just went back and looked at the blurb quotes and they're very disingenuous too: I find it very hard to believe anyone would leave the play thinking any of those things, even if they did enjoy it. |
|
41 posts
|
Post by shakeel on Jun 11, 2022 23:14:01 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
Oh, and I'm not actually sure if she was pretending to not know her lines — there were points where that seemed quite real to me. (If it was a conceit, it's an annoying one because it didn't add anything and made it hard to follow certain passages)! |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 11, 2022 23:22:00 GMT
I wonder whether sales would have been better or worse if they’d marketed it as ”A new play by Lucy Kirkwood about a young couple of climate change activists who are killed under mysterious circumstances after being radicalised online into the world of conspiracy theories, unaware someone is secretly recording their every word.” Also what is this trend for playwrights to do a Stephen King and put themselves into their plays as characters. I can think of about four off the top of my head. |
|
41 posts
|
Post by shakeel on Jun 11, 2022 23:26:25 GMT
I wonder whether sales would have been better or worse I had the same convo with a friend. It's not selling brilliantly as far as I can tell... {Spoiler - click to view}
I think it probably would have sold better if they'd come clean. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jun 12, 2022 8:38:57 GMT
Thanks for this. Very helpful. Wanted to know if good play really…and you have all helped with that one! Excellent use of the spoiler function all round! (Of course I read them all but I am the type that turns to the end of the book to find out the ending!) |
|
1,504 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 12, 2022 13:41:30 GMT
Ditto everything Latecomer said. With all the Dave Davidson hype (and there are some cross folks on twitter today) I couldn't get a sense if it was a good play - or even if it was a play. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 13, 2022 9:13:17 GMT
This has caught a fair bit of heat on twitter.
Could argue it wasn't the wisest way to market it with the manufactured details given about the "writer" but... blimey... I do feel a bit of common sense would have told you it was an alias and people seem quite keen to take this a personal attack on particularly older writers who haven't been commissioned.
Are we now to pretend other big theatres are doing anything different?
I looked at some of the spoilers in this thread as wasn't sure whether to go, now I'm more interested...
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 13, 2022 11:26:17 GMT
Why not just say 'a new play by {Spoiler - click to view}
Lucy Kirkwood
rather than pretending they had actually reached out to a first time writer?
I really love her work but I was also thinking, how great, the Royal Court may actually be giving a break to a middle-aged first timer from a non-typical background as far as arts-entry is concerned, which is the sort of thing it should be doing. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 13, 2022 11:37:46 GMT
Probably worth spoiler tagging that - I think some people will be wanting to go into this one blind.
It's very clear why it wasn't billed as that, because of the whole concept of the play... let's not be disingenuous about this and pretend they could have billed it as a play by... The whole idea is pretty clear. I'm honestly really surprised anyone didn't clock onto the fact it wasn't a security worker or whatever the blurb was. The description, the fact it says no one is who they seem, heck even the title of the play gives it away, this wasn't as cryptic as being made out.
I don't disagree it would be interesting for them to commission inexpericed writers, middle-aged etc etc but why is that what they "should" be doing? It really isn't. It isn't their remit. Neither is it any of the other big theatres.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on Jun 13, 2022 11:53:51 GMT
I was one of the naive people until I read the early messages on here. I'd be happy to see a play by the actual writer, whose work I really like, but was also excited by the idea of a real older writer with no theatre background, because I can't remember the last time I saw a play by a new writer who wasn't either under 30, already a writer of other forms, or already working in theatre as an actor or other capacity.
I don't think it matters much - the play will be remembered for whether it is well-written, not for the gimmick. But it feels a bit cliquey to do it this way...
The RC markets itself as 'the writers' theatre' and part of its remit is to find and nurture new writers. So, yes that should include a wide range of ages, just as I'd expect it to include a range of cultural and class backgrounds.
|
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 13, 2022 12:08:02 GMT
I was one of the naive people until I read the early messages on here. I'd be happy to see a play by the actual writer, whose work I really like, but was also excited by the idea of a real older writer with no theatre background, because I can't remember the last time I saw a play by a new writer who wasn't either under 30, already a writer of other forms, or already working in theatre as an actor or other capacity. I don't think it matters much - the play will be remembered for whether it is well-written, not for the gimmick. But it feels a bit cliquey to do it this way... The RC markets itself as 'the writers' theatre' and part of its remit is to find and nurture new writers. So, yes that should include a wide range of ages, just as I'd expect it to include a range of cultural and class backgrounds. The key word there being "nurture" not commission or programme. Their writing groups include a wide variety of ages and backgrounds but it's not realistic or practical to imagine someone will be plucked out of obscurity and be programmed in a theatre like that without some sort of previous experience, proven track record or (unfortunately) helpful connections, despite how exciting and interesting to see someone like that have a play on at the RC. Are the same people who complain about this the same who shell out and put the effort into seeing new writers in the many fringe theatres across London? Something tells me no. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 13, 2022 12:31:00 GMT
I don’t think anyone seriously expects the Court to programme a completely inexperienced writer who’s never written a play before (although as a matter of fact they have done exactly that, and of course it was a Royal Court employee who was good mates with Vicky Featherstone).
There are lots of extremely talented women and minority writers who are burning up the fringe scene, not new writers but people who have been working for 5 years at places like Vault, Edinburgh, Bush, Soho, Pleasance, had TV and film commissions but who unfathomably are yet to have a full length professional production at a major theatre. Those are exactly the kind of promising early career writers the Court should be programming but the Court and theatres of a similar level won’t touch them because they’re not part of the right clique or not from the right background.
It’s shocking that they programmed an employee who’d never written a play before but won’t even take meetings with critically acclaimed emerging playwrights who have made their mark on the fringe scene.
|
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 13, 2022 13:36:13 GMT
I don’t think anyone seriously expects the Court to programme a completely inexperienced writer who’s never written a play before (although as a matter of fact they have done exactly that, and of course it was a Royal Court employee who was good mates with Vicky Featherstone). There are lots of extremely talented women and minority writers who are burning up the fringe scene, not new writers but people who have been working for 5 years at places like Vault, Edinburgh, Bush, Soho, Pleasance, had TV and film commissions but who unfathomably are yet to have a full length professional production at a major theatre. Those are exactly the kind of promising early career writers the Court should be programming but the Court and theatres of a similar level won’t touch them because they’re not part of the right clique or not from the right background. It’s shocking that they programmed an employee who’d never written a play before but won’t even take meetings with critically acclaimed emerging playwrights who have made their mark on the fringe scene. New season does seem to include the sort of writers you're talking about, no? |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 13, 2022 13:51:00 GMT
Probably worth spoiler tagging that - I think some people will be wanting to go into this one blind. Sorry, I presumed the story was out there now through theatre Twitter and it's too late to edit (I've asked mods if they can do it). It just feels so tin-eared (again). Theatre still has a class problem, an access problem. To promote a play as being by a working-class sounding middle-aged first timer looked like they were trying to address that. As many on here suspected, that was too good to be true and just serves to highlight the problem more. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 13, 2022 15:01:22 GMT
Probably worth spoiler tagging that - I think some people will be wanting to go into this one blind. Sorry, I presumed the story was out there now through theatre Twitter and it's too late to edit (I've asked mods if they can do it). It just feels so tin-eared (again). Theatre still has a class problem, an access problem. To promote a play as being by a working-class sounding middle-aged first timer looked like they were trying to address that. As many on here suspected, that was too good to be true and just serves to highlight the problem more. I agree there are issues and you're right it probably was a bit tone deaf but I don't think it was their intention. It says he's worked in the security industry, the working class thing is a bit of a leap other people have taken, it wasnt signposted as LOOK WE ARE COMMISSIONING A WORKING CLASS WRITER. It's a shame people are disappointed & didn't cotton on to the whole point of the play. I tried early on here to warn that it wouldn't be what some people thought it was. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 13, 2022 15:51:37 GMT
From what I have read here, this is now of zero interest.
It was obviously a device set up to deliver a particular message. But was it worth it for the pay off as described?
It just feels like a rather tame gimmick rather than a meaningful piece of work
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 13, 2022 16:48:42 GMT
the working class thing is a bit of a leap other people have taken, it wasnt signposted as LOOK WE ARE COMMISSIONING A WORKING CLASS WRITER. 'Dave' who worked in security sounds working class (it's a name shared with the UK TV channel aimed at a working class/blokey/blue collar male audience). |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jun 13, 2022 16:55:25 GMT
Thats a bit of a stretch but we can agree to disagree.
Not the best idea to market it that way but honestly I think an overaction, but not an unexpected one in this day & age.
|
|
