Women, Beware The Devil by Lulu Raczka - Almeida

[alicechallice]

Thought I'd create a thread for the one new Almeida production which doesn't have it's own one yet...

Alongside Secret Life of Bees, tickets for this have also gone on sale today & initial cast announced...

Nathan Armarkwei-Laryea

Leo Bill

Carly-Sophia Davies

Lydia Leonard

Alison Oliver

almeida.co.uk/whats-on/women-beware-the-devil/11-feb-2023-25-mar-2023

[partytentdown]

Hmm. Can't decide if I fancy this or not.

[alessia]

Booked a cheap ticket for this and the Secret Life of Bees today. Very quick booking system unlike the NT!!

[foxa]

Dec 8, 2022 13:25:27 GMT alessia said:

Booked a cheap ticket for this and the Secret Life of Bees today. Very quick booking system unlike the NT!!

I did the same. Took about 10 minutes.

[alessia]

still 450 people ahead of me in the NT queue lol

[MrBunbury]

It is a bit late to put out the question because I am going to see it tonight, but has anyone seen it?
It is not the most romantic play for Valentine's Day but I thought that compared to the devil, I might look like a good catch :-)

[MrBunbury]

It lasts about two hours and fifteen minutes: first act (one hour and fifteen minutes), second act (fourty-five minutes).
Lule Rackza was sitting just in front of me and Rupert Goold at my left so I felt I needed to clap with some energy at the end, but overall I did not like the play. I think it is really unclear what it is meant to be: a tragedy? A farce?
Alison Oliver is good but her character is almost impossible to decipher; she seems an empty vessel of others' dreams with no real clear goal of her own. None of the potential interesting readings (class: nobles vs servants; gender: female empowerment; religion vs dark arts; history) is really developed.
Leo Bill is hilarious as the dim lord of the house but somehow his scenes jar with any serious concept; there is one scene between him and Oliver in the second act that is funny but at the same time on the other side of the stage something truly horrible happens so I did not know where I was meant to focus.
The ending is abrupt and I could not understand what was the point of the play (hopefully Steve will explain that to me when he reviews the play :-))

[londontg]

You're not the only one who did not understand the point of the play. I haven't seen it but according to someone who went to see the first preview, apparently the set design is good and the performances are great but they left confused about the point of it all. I was not sure about seeing this play but looks like I may need to avoid if this consensus continues.

[foxa]

After hesitating, I booked to see this later this month - I enjoy Leo Bill's work pretty consistently so thought I could risk a cheap seat. Oh well, if I don't like it, I'll cheer myself up with an ice cream cone from Udderlicious on Upper Street. (I'll probably do the same, even if I do like it.)

[Forrest]

foxa  - your comment may have also been written by me! I'm not sure what to think after these first reviews, but Leo Bill, the cosy space of the Almeida (with a ramen pop-up booked before, and hopefully some G&Ts after) and an ice-cream are enough to lure me in. Going this Saturday, with my expectations now calibrated pretty low, though.

[foxa]

Ooh pop-up ramen sounds good!

[alir]

Feb 15, 2023 8:36:25 GMT MrBunbury said:

It lasts about two hours and fifteen minutes: first act (one hour and fifteen minutes), second act (fourty-five minutes).
Lule Rackza was sitting just in front of me and Rupert Goold at my left so I felt I needed to clap with some energy at the end, but overall I did not like the play. I think it is really unclear what it is meant to be: a tragedy? A farce?
Alison Oliver is good but her character is almost impossible to decipher; she seems an empty vessel of others' dreams with no real clear goal of her own. None of the potential interesting readings (class: nobles vs servants; gender: female empowerment; religion vs dark arts; history) is really developed.
Leo Bill is hilarious as the dim lord of the house but somehow his scenes jar with any serious concept; there is one scene between him and Oliver in the second act that is funny but at the same time on the other side of the stage something truly horrible happens so I did not know where I was meant to focus.
The ending is abrupt and I could not understand what was the point of the play (hopefully Steve will explain that to me when he reviews the play :-))

[alir]

I saw the first preview. The cast are all excellent. I laughed at the opening speech by the Devil and thought ooo interesting. By the climax of Act 2 - there’s a speech between Alison Oliver’s character and the Lady of the house’s character and I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about - by that point I was thinking am I missing something? Is it too profound for me or too witty for me… great acting, great set - no idea re the point of this play. It did not entertain, make me laugh, upset me, move me… just made me think I’ve missed something and I’m obviously too thick to understand this great work of art…

[thistimetomorrow]

I felt very meh about this. I normally love anything to do with witchcraft, but this was really only surface level about witchcraft and I'm not really sure what they were going for instead?

[alessia]

On the basis of the above, I've returned my ticket- it seems to be selling very well though as the matinee performance I had booked for is sold out already

[matty]

This is definitely a blip in what has so far been a good season at the Almeida. I was expecting something more along the lines of The Crucible, instead got what felt like a slightly more adult Horrible Histories episode.

Some in the audience tonight thought this was proper laugh out loud funny, but I just didn't get it.


After a pretty horrific day in work, I couldn't face Act 2, so left at the interval. By the sounds of it, I didn't miss it getting any better.

[bobby]

I agree with all previous posts. I think Matty made a wise move to leave at the interval. I saw this last Friday. The Almeida has been doing so well recently and become the “off west end” venue to go to, but sadly I think this is a bit of a dud. Both the writing and acting are questionable and I’m surprised Rupert Goold let this one through. It’s confusing in what it’s actually about and I also didn’t totally understand what was happening and I’ve spent the last 45 years working in and going to the theatre. Will be interesting to see what the critics make of it on press night.

[foxa]

Mix of reviews, 2 to 4 so far, but urgh some of the 2 star reviews read compellingly. I will probably risk it, but may free Mr Foxa from the duty - not sure even an ice cream would make up for it.

[Forrest]

I have to admit I didn't quite get this: it wasn't boring - it was quirky and visually very attractive, with some entertaining moments - but it also didn't seem to have much depth or make much of a whole, content wise, and I couldn't decide what "side" it was on among the few that it presented.

Sometimes I wonder how Goold chooses the work he wishes to take on, as a lot of it is hit and miss in my view. I love his style, but some texts (this, The 47th) just aren't that great. I truly wonder what got him excited about this.

[foxa]

Very much with Forrest on this one - I wasn't bored, visually it was splendid,some good performances (I particularly enjoyed Ionna Kimbook as the new wife) but I didn't really get what it was saying (and this wasn't helped by the Devil's prologue - something about what used to be called the devil is now 'systemic' - huh?) The last 15 minutes were a bit of a mess (the couple in front of me actually said out loud, 'This is going on too long.) Mr Foxa, who is better on history than me, was trying to work out what the civil war setting was saying to a modern audience,but didn't come to a conclusion. I think the playwright was reaching for something about property possibly (along the lines of property is theft because look at all the horrible things it makes people do) ...I really don't know.

However actually had a pleasant afternoon and very much enjoyed our Udderlicious ice creams on the way home (banana caramel and pistachio.)

[kate8]

No idea what this was trying to say. It seemed to be aiming at satire but with no clear target, and jokes that were sub-sub-Blackadder.

My friend wondered if it was trying to be some kind of allegory of the divisions in modern Britain, given the devil’s intro and the civil war setting. The witches and devil stirring up war and domestic division among the self-absorbed wealthy compared with the media and other dark forces stoking division now?

We also wondered about the title - if it was about the women’s lack of property rights and the damage from getting too invested in materialism? But maybe that’s a stretch, and it seemed quite un-feminist and dated, with all the women fighting over either the house or the undeserving man. Breaking the 4th wall isn’t enough to make that ironic.

Even if it was just meant to be fun it didn’t really succeed. It felt like an idea that could have gone in two or three directions, but the writer decided to go with all of them and couldn’t create a coherent whole. The design was the best thing about it.

[zahidf]

I thought this was fun with some good acting and costumes.

I wasn't expecting anything deep so didn't think too much about how pointless it was...

[jm25]

I saw this tonight and whilst I genuinely would say that I enjoyed it, I can understand the criticisms about it not necessarily being sure what it wanted to say. I thought I ‘got’ it it in the first half but it was losing me throughout the second. Adored the stage design and the cast were great. The contrast in acting styles between Leo Bill and the rest of the cast actually really worked for me.

They had a talkback afterwards with the assistant director, Nathan Amarkwei-Laryea, Leo Bill and Lydia Leonard, the latter two of whom I’d thought had been especially good. Some of their comments might be able to shed some light on some questions asked in here - wish I’d read this thread properly beforehand so I could have listened out a bit more! But in essence the writer was apparently not entirely sure what type of play she was writing for part of the writing process, until there was a realisation it was a Jacobean tragedy of sorts.

When asked about themes Lydia Leonard did talk a bit about expecting there to be a flurry of other Civil War-set pieces of writing in the next few years due to the current divisions we’re seeing, as kate8 mentions. But actually when talking about the text itself she seemed more taken by some of the smaller questions that it raises (ie. If change is needed, what does that mean for the physical structures, which represent old institutions, that remain). It was an interesting answer, but I suppose if the keener interest was in the little questions, it does cast doubts about if this was a production was entirely sure what its broad themes were about!

All on all, for me the key criticisms are with the writing rather than the production itself. But like I said, I enjoyed it and I do think it’s worth a watch.

[Steve]

Late to the party, but I very much enjoyed today's matinee.

It struck me as the play version of The Rolling Stones's "Sympathy for the Devil," but while it manages to rework the ideas, about humans constantly reinventing everything through revolution and violence, for a specifically British and female context, it lacks Richards's and Watts's primally entertaining rhythms and beats to engage us more viscerally with the ideas.

Some spoilers follow. . .

Whereas Jagger's Devil "stuck around St. Petersburg" to kill the Czar, Raczka's sticks around a Cavalier household to join Cromwell's Roundheads in bringing it down.

But as in Jagger's song, the Devil doesn't do the dirty work alone, it's "you and me." And here, the you and me are all women.

Like a female Boris Johnson, Lydia Leonard's dry witty Lady of the House, Elizabeth, believes she can flirt with and take control of revolutionary forces (for Johnson, Brexit, for Elizabeth, "witchcraft") but still leave "the house" standing with her as the defacto head of it, but as with Johnson, and all Revolutionaries, she loses control of the revolution she's inspired, and endangers the "house" she's sworn to protect, and Thomas Middleton style, finds herself sidelined and the house in peril.

Elizabeth's supposed ally in her mini-coup, Alison Oliver's witch, Agnes, is a much more dangerous figure than the urbane, witty, cynical but pragmatic Elizabeth, because she's a true believer, more a Robespierre than a Johnson. Thus we see her at the beginning, trying the hardest to be "good" and loyal to God. But like all true believers, she is prone to damascene conversions, whereby her beliefs can be flipped around, and she ends up being an explosive revolutionary threat, with all the violence that entails. Oliver plays the part in a distinctly Irish accent, which compounds the irony of her revolutionary character, as the revolution she is facilitating, we know will ultimately will lead to Oliver Cromwell's Roundheads committing wholesale true-believing bloody murder on the island of Ireland in the name of Puritanism.

These two women flit around the orbit of the man who owns the house, Leo Bill's Edward, whose love of beef (manly) and hatred of fish (feminine) reveal a pathetic clinging to a rigid gender identity which is at war with his intrinsic effeteness. He clings to the order of King and Country, and is so committed to being in charge, he can't even get it up for an equal, only for underlings and overlings lol. Bill marvellously realises the contradictions of the man, and gets multiple laughs out of illustrating them.

Raczka's attitude to everything is that of a historian, nonjudgementally presenting a circular history of horrors in a Darwinian and descriptive way. Her title suggests that she resists the lure of Revolution, since women should beware of it, but the prologue acknowledges that everything we are now follows from the history we witness.

So I think Raczka is as on point with her ideas as Jagger is in his masterpiece of a song.

But we are primal creatures, and we seek a primal undercurrent of laughs and scares and tears, which emotions Raczka only occasionally succeeds in playing on: she milks Bill's character for laughs, and she milks Leonard's character for wit and intelligence, and Oliver's catalyst of a character is ever fascinating and the most primal and least civilised in her behaviour. But the sheer primal majesty of Richards and Watts isn't sufficiently there to make this as entertaining as The Rolling Stones's masterpiece.

So I'd give it 4 stars, as for me, it's very interesting and intellectually entertaining, but I'd withhold a star for not making Bill sillier, Leonard cleverer, and Oliver scarier. We need more primal engagement as an undercurrent to intellectual engagement.

[jr]

Bloody boring, left at interval. Nice set and lighting, could not find anything else that interested me.