Against starring Ben Whishaw (Almeida)

Yes, particularly as, given the messianic theme, you knew pretty well how it was likely to end. I was hoping for something that would really pull it back and tie things together but it was just weirdly random. I don't feel like shelling out a tenner for the playscript to see if there was something important I missed, and the Amazon workers coda didn't help either.

It kept reminding me of something (besides the obvious) - a 60s/70s film? Elements of They Might be Giants or, maybe slightly, of Wise Blood or Static (a lost 80s film which Mosquitoes brought to mind as well - warning: if you look at the little clip video on Youtube with the TheThe soundtrack, there's a massive spoiler in it!)

We were all out yesterday weren't we, sadly I'd dressed for deepest autumn and the day turned summer so I was too busy necking water to do board member hunting.

Not had much time to comment lately, but I take the time to do so, as I ran into Parsley at this, which proved to be, along with Ben Whishaw's performance, one of the only things I liked about this.

Some spoilers follow. . .

This lost me from the start, when a chap, who, supposedly visited by God, barely registers the experience as unusual, reacting in an unbelievably plodding and sluggish way. Of course, this is not about God, but how wretched and sad humans are, but this author did better with the same themes in both the previous plays I've seen by him, at Royal Court and the Donmar. In fact, each play this author writes is less interesting than the last, as he assumes Orson Welles' mantle of living his life backwards.

The good thing about hating the play, was getting to hate on it with Parsley, the master of hating on plays, who caned it with me in the interval. Parsley never got past the look of the guy with the huge muscles in the tight T-shirt, who I said I thought looked like a member of the crew of the Starship Enterprise, his t-shirt nike-symbol looking like a Starfleet insignia, which of course meant that his character was marked for slaughter. After all, only James T Kirk, or Ben Whishaw gets to dress like that and survive.

Comparing this play to Ben Whishaw's previous Almeida show, Bakkhai, which I loved, I think what this show really lacked was a good antagonist to embody humanity's ennui. The Ben Whishaw/Bertie Carvel faceoff of Bakkhai was electrifying for me, especially as both characters had so much ying and yang in them you barely knew who to root for. Here, you not only knew who to root for, you knew there was no point doing it anyway, as the play was entirely lacking in thrust.

2 and a half stars, for Ben Whishaw (and Parsley too, who's powerful and expressive id this show lacked, to it's detriment, much like this board. Please come back Parsley!).

I saw this last Saturday but was hesitating to write anything because I didn't make it past the interval. It was the end of a long day and then the damn thing was so dull that I was seriously afraid I was going to nod off and end up in the lap of the stranger next to me. So I fled into the cool Islington night.

'Teddy Ferrera' was a very flawed play but, as Steve says, much better than this (or to be fair - what I saw of this.) 'Ferrera' seemed to be about real things, which this wasn't. I didn't even like Whishaw (who I know can be v. good) - I found him plodding and calculated and unappealing - there I've said it - but maybe he came into his own in the second half. I'll never know.

Oh dearie me.

At the interval my friend and I looked at each other and burst out laughing. I was actually wondering if it was meant to be a parody until we saw the tribute shrine thing at the front of the stalls.

It didn't improve after the interval.

It's made it onto my list of 'you think that's bad? Didn't you see ...?' plays.

I really enjoyed it, helped by watching it with the outlook that there was gold to be found in it.

EmiCardiff, how can you turn down a play with the first NT Angel in its cast?

I think of Christopher Shinn's plays as a sort of anti-cooking process. They're stuffed full of all the right ingredients but the audience has to do the actual cooking in their heads, hearts and loins. There probably is a secret recipe but most people end up with a different dish.

Christopher Shinn is one of my favourite playwrights, unleashing real people on the stage.

Interesting interpretation, though no good for those who prefer ready-meals or even takeaways.  Sounds a bit like Mosquitoes to me, i.e. there's a good play in there somewhere and the ingredients are promising but some work is needed to identify the best combination.

As I've said, I quite liked this as it was though it could have been much better.

I agree with the quirk-free servings, which in theatrical terms for me equates to no promenade performances, standing, puppetry, miming or interval-free productions. But the word Michelin in connection with dining is almost as much an anathema (and a turn-off) as was the loathsome concept of nouvelle cuisine. Give me a couple of decent platefuls of simple, solid, satisfying stodge, with plenty of carbs. The traditional "well-made play" perhaps?

I have. I was so hungry by the time I left that I had to get a pasty on the way home. I don't know how that fits into tha analogy though.

Yes - I didn't think it was bad, but it felt half-finished. I've seen several new plays by well-known names recently that I felt would be better with a few more rewrites.