1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on Mar 26, 2017 0:56:42 GMT
An interesting, informative play. Well acted and with a good pace and flow. The references to current situations are rather Laboured. Good for some laughs of recognition but not relevant to the actionEach historical situation is different and drawing parallels, whilst an engrossing pastime, leads to seeing patterns which aren't necessarily there.
In political terms it was quite even-handed, I was expecting this to be more anti-SDP. The balance between the politics and the human dilemnas was good, I thought.
Row C in the Circle isn't fantastic but at £10 you can hardly complain, especially when the re-sellers probably sell these at 10 or 20 times the price. Does the lampshade on the set have to hang so low though? It interferes unnecessarily with he view at times.
I agree that the postcript was unnecessary.
|
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on Mar 26, 2017 7:25:09 GMT
I thought the performances were downright terrific and as always both Roger Allam and Tom Goodman-Hill prove themselves to be among our very best actors. It was also nice to be in a theatre with virtually no American tourists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 9:01:46 GMT
Saw this earlier in the week and, while it's always a pleasure to see the great Allam on stage, I didn't think it was particularly good. Perfectly enjoyable but quite clunky and cliched - I feel like I've now seen enough plays in which an alpha male strides around the kitchen in the early hours orating while the little woman shushes him because she doesn't want him to wake the baby. So it started badly for me - and ended badly with that unforgivably terrible monologue. I think I did enjoy the inbetween bits and it had some interesting things to say about loyalty, identity and emotion in politics - but all a bit 'meh'. There's a fascinating play to be written about the subject but this is too busy trying to insert jokes about Europe and Labour today to manage it; and it's a real underestimation of the audience to think we wouldn't be able to find those parallels without them being signposted in massive letters.
I really really hate writers who think audiences give the tiniest s**t about what they personally think and try to bash us over the head with their opinions, so my memory is probably being coloured by the last two mins. I might have had more favourable feelings towards it without that! Overall I just left feeling I'd been patronised by a writer who thought I was too thick to see what he was getting at without it being explicitly spelled out.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 8, 2017 14:14:52 GMT
Agree heartily with no need for last monologue. I suggested they could have used an edited video thing. Next we will be getting tedious 'codes' after everything just in case we missed the point. Trend to be stopped in its tracks please.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 15, 2017 8:51:13 GMT
Finally caught this shortly before it closed.
Show report:
Play: Steve Waters has carved out an unusual niche. As with Temple, he writes about about intelligent people trying to make the unglamourous centre ground hold in shifting times. Also, as in Temple, touches on the vanity of politics. The play presents no solutions (how could it?) and we were rather dispirited as we stepped out into the night air.
Casting: Fine, though unusual in having a couple of actors rather less attractive than their originals (I don't think Owen or Rodgers would be flattered.)
Food: Yes, made me want to whip up Delia's macaroni and cheese. I felt they should have eaten more salad.
Audience: Rather subdued. The obvious parallels with now made for some rather sad listening and knowing nods. It was sold out with standing room full too. There was an altercation near me with a man who didn't want to sit in his seat (not sure why) and was sitting on stairs instead. Was moved (he chose to stand) but not until some harsh words were spoken and the usher plaintively said, 'You don't have to swear at me.'
Staging: Fine, but in many ways it is a very untheatrical play. There is a movement director credited and I can't imagine what they did - advised Chahidi on how to act having a bad back?
Insight: I wanted to learn more about Debbie Owen - intriguing moments about her contributions. Also interesting points about how a new party is formed - can it be imposed or does it have to rise organically.
Take away: We're all doomed.
3/4*
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 22:31:49 GMT
The timing thing just made me laugh after a while. Debbie started making that dish at 9 in the morning for heaven's sake, even the most dried out pasta only needs 12 or so minutes in a pan of boiling water. And when the clock started whizzing through the minutes super quickly as everyone moved at normal pace on stage, I couldn't help but imagine that they were actually moving really slowly. I know we shouldn't be overthinking the scene transitions, but I think that speaks for the overall writing that I couldn't help but notice how odd they were if you thought about them for more than thirty seconds.
|
|
