1,500 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 30, 2022 22:41:07 GMT
The second part of a trilogy about relationships by David Eldridge, featuring different characters than in "Beginning," this is an involving and affecting look at the "middle" of a relationship, with terrific performances by Daniel Ryan and Claire Rushbrook, though less winning and less funny than "Beginning," by virtue of the relationship being a lot less fun. . . Some spoilers follow. . . In the brilliant new Netflix TV show, Heartstopper, teenagers fall in love, and visually every time their hearts skip a beat, you see sparkling flowers and leaves emanate from their bodies. Although they weren't actually there, in "Beginning," I felt the magic of those flowers and leaves emanate from every pore of Justine Mitchell as she broke down Sam Troughton's stiff defenses, until, by the end, the whole play was romantic and sparkling flowers and leaves. In "Middle," the flowers and leaves have wilted, unwatered, and the play opens with a slightly annoyingly on-the-nose declaration by Claire Rushbrook's Maggie that she thinks she no longer loves husband, Daniel Ryan's Gary. The declaration is only slightly annoying as it facilitates an immediate tension that drives and allows the real time 1 hour 45 minute interaction, between the couple that follows, to develop swiftly, organically and dramatically. Like in "Beginning," this is a real time, uninterrupted 100 minute conversation (ie without an interval), that features periodic twists, and ebbs and flows in the conversation, to keep the dramatic interest peaked, illuminating two very believable and affecting characters. The drama aims and succeeds at being somewhat universal (it wants to mirror, to an extent, the "middle" of everyone's relationships), but the disadvantage dramatically, of this universality, is that it also avoids the entertainment value of extreme personality types. For example, the middle of the relationship depicted in "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf," full of bristling resentment, caustic barbs and hellacious put-downs, would be a heck of alot funnier and more entertaining than what we experience here, which is more akin to loneliness, boredom and the drabness of drifting apart, as well as the raging against the dying of this light. And yet, that is also this play's strength, as such drifting and loneliness affects many more of us than the psychopathic daggers at dawn of Martha and George (Johnny Depp and Amber Heard excepted, of course). Rushbrook and Ryan are utterly convincing as husband and wife (indeed they even played husband and wife on the telly yonks ago), with a class tension between them, based on Ryan's character having had a tougher, more down-to-earth upbringing than Rushbrook's character. This seed of a conflict is what is diseasing the flowers and leaves between them, and it is very much Ryan's earthy character who generates the bulk of the sympathy, as he struggles as hard to glue his relationship together, as Justine Mitchell struggled in "Beginning" to birth one together from scratch. There are wonderful details in the writing that delight, and I was never bored, for even a second, at the progression of the plot. Indeed, despite the muted universal, norm-like, basic predictable reasonableness of the characters, I developed such an affection for them, that I would have watched much more of them, even once the show was over. Rushbrook has the harder job, as her character is much more whiny in her discontent than the likeably positive and taciturn Ryan. But she humanised the whining, and I felt for her character, empathising with her midlife malaise, even as I sided with Ryan's character completely lol. All in all, even if this show doesn't have the energising glow of sparkling flowers and leaves, it nonetheless has the moving affect and effect of the gardener who will not let his garden die. 4 stars from me.  |
|
630 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jamb0r on May 1, 2022 11:24:48 GMT
I went to the first preview of this and also really enjoyed it. Definitely not as fun as ‘Beginning’, but very well written and I thought the performances were great.
£10 front row Friday Rush seats are a bargain - the stage is a good height and no blocking issues if sat in the middle.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 1, 2022 17:04:26 GMT
I didn't see Beginning but booked this as I had credit going out of date and rather thought I could return if didn't fancy it (can you still return tickets for credit at the nt?). Recommend to hold onto for now? I wasn't wildly encouraged by the trailer/clip I saw but then I've seen other things I enjoyed and wouldn't have thought so from the trailer. Currently not very inclined to make effort to go out but that might just be because i've just eaten my last easter egg and feeling sorrowful that will now have to face the challenge of getting back to being able to wear clothing that isn't elasticated.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on May 1, 2022 22:51:59 GMT
Not seen Beginning either but am intrigued by this as I enjoy husband and wife dramas and think Polly Findlay is a fab director. Do I need to have seen/read Beginning to follow or is it alright to go in blind?
|
|
630 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by jamb0r on May 2, 2022 21:01:12 GMT
Do I need to have seen/read Beginning to follow or is it alright to go in blind? It’s totally different characters and this isn’t a continuation from Beginning at all, so you don’t need to have any knowledge of it |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 3, 2022 18:10:10 GMT
I loved Beginning, saw it twice. Justine Mitchell was fabulous. I am a bit wary given that play was all about hope and I'm guessing this is less so, but I'll try and pick up a day seat.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 4, 2022 22:08:10 GMT
I don’t know if I’m getting crotchety in my old age but I thought this was dire. I have a whatever they opposite of a penchant is for what I call Eastenders plays - plays that revolve entirely around the characters’ domestic lives, written in aggressively naturalistic “innit” dialogue. But this was really boring. It’s extremely and acutely well-observed and anyone who’s ever been through a breakup will feel a pang of recognition. But the indeterminable angry/remorseful/wistful back and forth conversations you have during a breakup just aren’t that interesting to watch. It also just all felt incredibly subdued and (apart from one notable moment) unemotional compared to the average breakup.
There are some great lines, but I don’t see why audiences laugh themselves hoarse at lines like “We have lunch at Pret every Friday. Sometimes Yo Sushi (audience laughter) But you don’t like sushi. (Gales of laughter) Well I thought I’d try it.” (Audience wets itself.) What am I missing here?
The directing was bland and for some reason Findlay had made the decision to place what little action there is in the far upstate right corner, where the actors were completely invisible to anyone sitting on the right hand side.
The acting is good but the actors seem to be acting in completely different plays. Claire Rushbrook plays her character as though she’s in Hedda Gabler, while Daniel Ryan seems to think he’s in a sitcom. Maybe Eldridge worried he’d lose the audience if he didn’t break up the gloom and monotony with plenty of jokes but Ryan’s one-liners felt so overtly performed at the audience it broke up the realism of the scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on May 5, 2022 8:13:16 GMT
I don’t know if I’m getting crotchety in my old age but I thought this was dire. I have a whatever they opposite of a penchant is for what I call Eastenders plays - plays that revolve entirely around the characters’ domestic lives, written in aggressively naturalistic “innit” dialogue. But this was really boring. It’s extremely and acutely well-observed and anyone who’s ever been through a breakup will feel a pang of recognition. But the indeterminable angry/remorseful/wistful back and forth conversations you have during a breakup just aren’t that interesting to watch. It also just all felt incredibly subdued and (apart from one notable moment) unemotional compared to the average breakup. There are some great lines, but I don’t see why audiences laugh themselves hoarse at lines like “We have lunch at Pret every Friday. Sometimes Yo Sushi (audience laughter) But you don’t like sushi. (Gales of laughter) Well I thought I’d try it.” (Audience wets itself.) What am I missing here? The directing was bland and for some reason Findlay had made the decision to place what little action there is in the far upstate right corner, where the actors were completely invisible to anyone sitting on the right hand side. The acting is good but the actors seem to be acting in completely different plays. Claire Rushbrook plays her character as though she’s in Hedda Gabler, while Daniel Ryan seems to think he’s in a sitcom. Maybe Eldridge worried he’d lose the audience if he didn’t break up the gloom and monotony with plenty of jokes but Ryan’s one-liners felt so overtly performed at the audience it broke up the realism of the scene. I agree about a lot of this, but I loved the play. I wonder how the liked/disliked views divide along female/male lines? My friend and I are both divorced middle aged women and thought it was one of the best new plays we've seen recently and that it shone a light on our own experiences, but I heard a couple of men saying it was dull. Small sample, but I think the woman character had more depth and was a lot more interesting, so maybe more to identify with? I was sitting in the side seats on the right and yes, the direction made that really frustrating. For 50ish percent of the time I couldn't see at least one of the actors, and for long chunks I might as well have been listening to a radio play. So unless you get a £10 rush ticket, I'd avoid the sides for this. The opposite side might be better, but you wouldn't be able to see the kitchen, where both characters spend a bit of time. On my way out I had a look at the set from the front and realised there was not only a sofa and coffee table, but a whole dining room at the back which was invisible from my seat. I liked the contrast in acting styles because it was about communication, or lack of it - two nice, ordinary people who might as well have been speaking different languages, with different approaches to life, different interests - same as almost every midlife divorced couple I know. There was a lot to cringe, recognise, wince and feel sad about but also some laughs, though hard to understand the level of hilarity at some throwaway lines. I didn't see Beginning, but I didn't feel much hope at the end of this - not for the relationship anyway. But I think that probably depends on your own stage of life and relationship history. I think this would look very different to someone older who'd been through this stage and stayed together, or someone in a newer relationship, even someone for whom these characters are closer their own children's or parents' ages. What was interesting and compelling was how it unpicked the layers of the relationship - what's gone wrong and all the little reasons that have led to where they are, and was cleverly observed in how each character dealt with the changes and revelations. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 5, 2022 19:42:02 GMT
I have a side seat and was already umming and ahhing, perhaps i should give this a miss.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi on May 5, 2022 19:46:57 GMT
Which side is the 'wrong' side?
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on May 6, 2022 9:05:17 GMT
Which side is the 'wrong' side? Stage right/house left is the wrong side. I still enjoyed it despite sitting on that side, but the actors are out of sight for a lot of the play. Not too bad if you pay £10, but I think some of those seats sell for £40. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 6, 2022 10:10:23 GMT
I was stage left/house right and would say that’s also the wrong side, as the entire kitchen is invisible. There was a lot of laughter during scenes set in the kitchen that I assume must have physical comedy but they were completely invisible to anyone on that side. Half my my row was standing up and leaning all the way over the rail to try to see and still couldn’t see a thing.
Honestly don’t see this play at all unless it’s a seat directly facing the stage, both sides have zero visibility for significant parts of the action.
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on May 6, 2022 10:31:12 GMT
Why on earth in a theatre with as flexible seating as the Dorfman do they insist on this end-on staging with such limited views.
|
|
|
|
Post by cavocado on May 6, 2022 10:58:38 GMT
Why on earth in a theatre with as flexible seating as the Dorfman do they insist on this end-on staging with such limited views. And why are they selling some of the side seats as unrestricted? I'd imagine all of the side seats have a restricted view for this. Different design/staging would have served the play better, but at the very least the ticket pricing and description should take account of how much of the stage is out of view. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 14, 2022 20:48:40 GMT
I have P11 which is on the right hand side as you look at the stage (I'm not sure how stage right works, is it as if you're on the stage or looking at it?) it doesn't say restricted but am wondering if I'd see anything much there.
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on May 15, 2022 0:43:25 GMT
Okay so the stage as you look at it from the front has a sofa on the left, and a kitchen on the right.
If you’re facing the stage (regardless of which level) you can see everything.
If you’re in the side seats you’re sitting at a 90° angle to the stage. If you’re right next to the stage then maybe it’s okay. Seats further from the stage, you won’t be able to see what’s on the same side as you. So if you’re sitting on the left you won’t see the sofa. If you’re sitting on the right you won’t see the kitchen. The further away from the stage, the less you can see. I was in N22 in the Circle (right hand side as you’re facing the stage) and didn’t know there even was a kitchen.
|
|
426 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 15, 2022 7:02:26 GMT
If you’re in the side seats you’re sitting at a 90° angle to the stage. If you’re right next to the stage then maybe it’s okay. Seats further from the stage, you won’t be able to see what’s on the same side as you. So if you’re sitting on the left you won’t see the sofa. If you’re sitting on the right you won’t see the kitchen. The further away from the stage, the less you can see. I was in N22 in the Circle (right hand side as you’re facing the stage) and didn’t know there even was a kitchen. This is maddening. It's pure arrogance on the part of the creatives. And I lay the ultimate blame on Rufus and his line producers for simply not saying : NO - let's allow the audience to see the play for which they've paid money. It's not as if designers don't know the theatre for which they are designing, or directors don't know the space with which they have to operate. This was also the case with the recent production of Daddy at the Almeida; fully ⅓ of the audience could not see anything which happened upstage left where for no good reason the director chose to have a great deal of the action take place. Between the rise in obstructed seats, the rise in service charges, the rise in the cost of a program( Love is only Love was £4.50 - really? WTF?) There has become an overall lack of respect for the audience experience that is running across all levels of theatres in London I don't care how many followup surveys they send out. |
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on May 16, 2022 10:36:44 GMT
Having originally booked a £20 RV side seat (M10) for tomorrows matinee, I’ve just been to the box office and they have kindly swapped it for the front row of the pit at the same price. It might be worth getting in touch with the box office to see if they can do anything similar for anybody who has originally booked a similar RV ticket.
|
|
1,866 posts
|
Post by Dave B on May 17, 2022 9:20:55 GMT
Having originally booked a £20 RV side seat (M10) for tomorrows matinee, I’ve just been to the box office and they have kindly swapped it for the front row of the pit at the same price. It might be worth getting in touch with the box office to see if they can do anything similar for anybody who has originally booked a similar RV ticket. I am there for the same matinee on a Rush in L61 - gimme a wave! |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on May 17, 2022 17:38:15 GMT
See NT helpfully released photos of the set today so you can look at them and picture it if you can't see it! Bit ironic since the post is all about the detail and care gone into making it so would kinda help if people could see it.
|
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on May 17, 2022 18:12:07 GMT
A nice surprise meet up with fellow board members Dave B and londonpostie at today’s matinee. I’m certainly glad I got my seat changed from the side seating to the front row.Having a look at what I would of seen from my original seat, a fair bit if the set would of been obscured and at times probably at least one of the cast. It is a great on stage set when seen full on. As for the play itself, for the 90 minutes straight through it was an ok watch and held my attention throughout. It certainly came across as bit of a kitchen sink drama and has similarities to Hansen in that you have a couple who spend the entire play dissecting their marriage , looking back at the regrets, decisions made and what ifs. The casting of Claire Rushbrook and Daniel Ryan as the couple worked well with plenty of humour in the writing from David Eldridge. |
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on May 17, 2022 22:46:57 GMT
A nice surprise meet up with fellow board members Dave B and londonpostie at today’s matinee. I’m certainly glad I got my seat changed from the side seating to the front row.Having a look at what I would of seen from my original seat, a fair bit if the set would of been obscured and at times probably at least one of the cast. It is a great on stage set when seen full on. As for the play itself, for the 90 minutes straight through it was an ok watch and held my attention throughout. It certainly came across as bit of a kitchen sink drama and has similarities to Hansen in that you have a couple who spend the entire play dissecting their marriage , looking back at the regrets, decisions made and what ifs. The casting of Claire Rushbrook and Daniel Ryan as the couple worked well with plenty of humour in the writing from David Eldridge. Similarities to Hansard was what I meant! |
|
1,866 posts
|
Post by Dave B on May 18, 2022 10:26:50 GMT
Two Dave's and a Postie walk into the NT - stop me if you have heard this one before.... Yes, agree with much of above posters. It was okay and did hold my attention, I liked both Claire Rushbrook and Daniel Ryan. I thought both did a particularly good job in making me believe in their relationship and the years they had spent together, I was happy to watch 'em back and forth. I had a £10 rush ticket which put me on the side of the pit, the four seats next to me were marked as restricted. Mine was okay, for a tenner I didn't mind the odd moment where I was just getting a view of the side of a face but they moved nicely around the stage throughout so no real complaints.
Enjoyed meeting david and londonpostie (again!) - I do think it notable that all three of us came out of this with immediate comparisons to Hansard - and very much enjoyed chatting about various shows and that outside afterwards. |
|
145 posts
|
Post by mjh on May 22, 2022 7:26:28 GMT
Could anyone advise of what time this ends please? Just looking at trains.
|
|
1,866 posts
|
Post by Dave B on May 22, 2022 8:12:36 GMT
Could anyone advise of what time this ends please? Just looking at trains. The matinee was almost bang on 1.35, no interval. So I imagine not very much after 9.10 for the evening show. |
|
