'Wild' - Hampstead Theatre

[foxa]

Going to see this tonight - the first previews were a couple of days ago, but I haven't heard a peep, so will go with no particular expectations.  I know the work of the playwright (Bartlett), director (Macdonald) and designer (Buether) but the cast is totally unknown to me.... and there are only three of them.  Sometimes that is a bit sad - I always like thinking, 'ah someone else COULD come in.'

It's inspired by the Snowden affair.

Will report back.

[mallardo]

Wow, I'd forgotten all about this. Thanks for the timely reminder.

[n1david]

Booked for next month on the basis of the same three names foxa mentioned. Bartlett is always interesting even if his ambitions don't always come off.

[foxa]

This was the fourth preview - often that doesn't matter. In this case it did.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The premise: Set in hotel room, a Snowden-like figure is holed up. Two characters, through various means, try to get him to trust/join them.
The acting: Caoilfhianne is very strong: surprising, fresh in a really hard role. John Mackay is fine. Jack Farthing was frustrating. Largely it's how the part is written but he is a big void in the middle of the piece. For no good reason he takes his shirt off about 2/3s of the way through and I really think that was just to offer something interesting.
The set: You think why bother to get an innovative designer like Miriam Buether to do a boring hotel set. And then (and I will be careful here to avoid spoilers) a coup de theatre. Well, there was supposed to be, but it was more coup de what the heck? The actors tried to carry on but the stage management had to come on and say there had been a set malfunction, then they brought the curtain down - lots of noise. Then it came up and things had changed. Then some other things were meant to change in (I think) a quick, magical fashion. But they didn't. One effect was so slow Caoilfhianne stared at it as it was happening and then pointedly looked at her watch. We could sort of get what was meant to happen but the audience got the giggles and the cast looked a bit downcast. I'd appreciate it if someone who sees it later in the run could DM me what it was really like.
Take away: Talk talk talk. Stuff happens.
Running time: 1 hour 35 no interval.

[Deleted]

Jun 14, 2016 22:08:42 GMT foxa said:

This was the fourth preview - often that doesn't matter. In this case it did.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The premise: Set in hotel room, a Snowden-like figure is holed up. Two characters, through various means, try to get him to trust/join them.
The acting: Caoilfhianne is very strong: surprising, fresh in a really hard role. John Mackay is fine. Jack Farthing was frustrating. Largely it's how the part is written but he is a big void in the middle of the piece. For no good reason he takes his shirt off about 2/3s of the way through and I really think that was just to offer something interesting.
The set: You think why bother to get an innovative designer like Miriam Buether to do a boring hotel set. And then (and I will be careful here to avoid spoilers) a coup de theatre. Well, there was supposed to be, but it was more coup de what the heck? The actors tried to carry on but the stage management had to come on and say there had been a set malfunction, then they brought the curtain down - lots of noise. Then it came up and things had changed. Then some other things were meant to change in (I think) a quick, magical fashion. But they didn't. One effect was so slow Caoilfhianne stared at it as it was happening and then pointedly looked at her watch. We could sort of get what was meant to happen but the audience got the giggles and the cast looked a bit downcast. I'd appreciate it if someone who sees it later in the run could DM me what it was really like.
Take away: Talk talk talk. Stuff happens.
Running time: 1 hour 35 no interval.

I will in detail

Sorry to hear about these cack ups

[thehillsarealive]

I was there last night, and I can't stop thinking about it. Despite the technical hiccups, what they pull off is frankly astonishing. I'm going to go back and see it later in the run - not just to see a more polished production, but because I enjoyed it SO much.

[n1david]

Press night has been moved from tomorrow (Thursday) to next Monday, the 20th, according to Marky Mark Shenton.

[foxa]

Yes, I gather they may still be having problems. When waiting for the show downstairs tonight, I heard a woman taking one of the ushers to task because when she went to see it there were problems.

Her: You'd think they wouldn't put it on until they got it right.
Him: Well, it is a very technically difficult show.
Her: I hear they've delayed the critics, so not right for them to see it yet.
Him: Well, it is a very technically difficult show....

And so on.

(And then once we were in the downstairs show, another usher got taken to task because they didn't like the seating for various reasons. Her: 'I'm telling you now - it's a preview so you can get it right for tomorrow - no one said these seats would have restricted views,these walls need to be cut down, etc.' FOH at Hampstead are saints. I think they have to put up with a lot of grousing.)

[kjb]

I am suitably intrigued so have just booked to see today's matinee.

[foxa]

Tell us how you get on. I really like the Hampstead so even though my night at this wasn't entirely successful, I'm hoping that it works for others.

[kjb]

Well unlike Foxa I am not complaining that Jack Farthing took his shirt off ⅔ way through.

The coup de theatre mentioned (and not spoiled) above was amazing. Yes, there was a show stop for technical difficulties right near the end (about 1 page from the end). The curtain came in and we waited for about 10 minutes while they reset and we started that chunk of the scene again.I heard the FOH manager explaining to some patrons on the way out that it was to do with safety, and I can see why.

Some patrons were grumbling that they had been too ambitious. One shouted loudly that if the show wasn't ready it should've have been performed. I disagree. It is a technical show. All shows need an audience and theatre (well, society as a whole actually) needs ambition. And that is what previews are for, and technically as Press Night has been changed til Monday apparently, today it was still in previews.

My only problem with it was that I was watching the set so much towards the end that I didn't really hear the words, but that was sorted out by buying the playtext on my way out. However, I'm a stage manager myself so it's probably only right and correct that I was concentrating most on the set (and wondering how the blinking flip they did it)

I'd recommend, and I really hope that they sort out all the technical problems so they (the whole team, cast and crew) can settle in to what is a great production which deserves recognition.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2016 17:22:23 GMT kjb said:

Well unlike Foxa I am not complaining that Jack Farthing took his shirt off ⅔ way through.

The coup de theatre mentioned (and not spoiled) above was amazing. Yes, there was a show stop for technical difficulties right near the end (about 1 page from the end). The curtain came in and we waited for about 10 minutes while they reset and we started that chunk of the scene again.I heard the FOH manager explaining to some patrons on the way out that it was to do with safety, and I can see why.

Some patrons were grumbling that they had been too ambitious. One shouted loudly that if the show wasn't ready it should've have been performed. I disagree. It is a technical show. All shows need an audience and theatre (well, society as a whole actually) needs ambition. And that is what previews are for, and technically as Press Night has been changed til Monday apparently, today it was still in previews.

My only problem with it was that I was watching the set so much towards the end that I didn't really hear the words, but that was sorted out by buying the playtext on my way out. However, I'm a stage manager myself so it's probably only right and correct that I was concentrating most on the set (and wondering how the blinking flip they did it)

I'd recommend, and I really hope that they sort out all the technical problems so they (the whole team, cast and crew) can settle in to what is a great production which deserves recognition.

It's not a mission to the moon or a space launch

The fact they had to move the press night isn't very professional

[kjb]

On the contrary Parsley, I think that admitting they needed more time to ensure safety of everyone involved is incredibly professional. As is admitting maybe they made a mistake in their initial scheduling, but doggedly sticking to the original schedule would have been far less professional.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2016 18:19:47 GMT kjb said:

On the contrary Parsley, I think that admitting they needed more time to ensure safety of everyone involved is incredibly professional. As is admitting maybe they made a mistake in their initial scheduling, but doggedly sticking to the original schedule would have been far less professional.

Did this unprecedented professionalism

Extend to refunding people

Who had paid for a full show

And got a f*** up preview instead?

With a 10 minute pause

Which in a 100 minute show is pretty significant

Doubt it

That's what you would call real professionalism

Thanks

[kjb]

Well I never expected you to agree with me Parsley. I cannot comment on any refunds offered or not, but the ticket I bought this morning was priced as a preview.

[nash16]

This was terrible.

I fear Mike Bartlett's worst play.  And we were really looking forward to it.

We went this evening, but asked the ushers about the technical troubles. They said it was "ongoing", but I hope they fix it for Tuesday's Press Night, because if the set fails again, I fear the press will make that the focus and use it to describe the play itself which feels very weak. It was an evening of very dry opinions of the individual, the state, Russia, America, what is truth, which makes it all sound more interesting than it was, because it was actually so dull. One room, with not a lot happening in it. I know Snowden was/is trapped in a similar environ, but there's no need to inflict it on us all, and have no interval. We really couldn't engage with any of the characters. Jack Farthing does his best, but taking his top off does seem like a desperate measure. How Dunne has learnt all the facts and wikipedia style ramblings is beyond me. She deserves a medal. HEr and Farthing try their best with the "witty banter" moments, but they die a death because they're surrounded by dry theorising. Mackay tries to inject some Pinter/mysterious force into proceedings, but again, dull. So many pauses in it all, supposedly significant: folding a chocolate bar wrapper, pouring a drink…bore off!

The set change at the end WAS visually impressive, but was basically bashing the audience over the head with its metaphor. Nothing exists. Nothing is real. Am I here? Are you here?

Engage us.  Give us some drama.  

No, no, no, no, no.

Poor.

Don't let the set change blind you.  Remember how you feel in the first 1hr 30mins.  

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2016 22:36:18 GMT nash16 said:

This was terrible.

I fear Mike Bartlett's worst play.  And we were really looking forward to it.

We went this evening, but asked the ushers about the technical troubles. They said it was "ongoing", but I hope they fix it for Tuesday's Press Night, because if the set fails again, I fear the press will make that the focus and use it to describe the play itself which feels very weak. It was an evening of very dry opinions of the individual, the state, Russia, America, what is truth, which makes it all sound more interesting than it was, because it was actually so dull. One room, with not a lot happening in it. I know Snowden was/is trapped in a similar environ, but there's no need to inflict it on us all, and have no interval. We really couldn't engage with any of the characters. Jack Farthing does his best, but taking his top off does seem like a desperate measure. How Dunne has learnt all the facts and wikipedia style ramblings is beyond me. She deserves a medal. HEr and Farthing try their best with the "witty banter" moments, but they die a death because they're surrounded by dry theorising. Mackay tries to inject some Pinter/mysterious force into proceedings, but again, dull. So many pauses in it all, supposedly significant: folding a chocolate bar wrapper, pouring a drink…bore off!

The set change at the end WAS visually impressive, but was basically bashing the audience over the head with its metaphor. Nothing exists. Nothing is real. Am I here? Are you here?

Engage us.  Give us some drama.  

No, no, no, no, no.

Poor.

Don't let the set change blind you.  Remember how you feel in the first 1hr 30mins.  

Can you give spoiler please

Of the set change

It's Miriam

Does it change to Bend It Like Beckham?!

[nash16]

Jun 18, 2016 22:44:34 GMT @parsley said:

Jun 18, 2016 22:36:18 GMT nash16 said:

This was terrible.

I fear Mike Bartlett's worst play.  And we were really looking forward to it.

We went this evening, but asked the ushers about the technical troubles. They said it was "ongoing", but I hope they fix it for Tuesday's Press Night, because if the set fails again, I fear the press will make that the focus and use it to describe the play itself which feels very weak. It was an evening of very dry opinions of the individual, the state, Russia, America, what is truth, which makes it all sound more interesting than it was, because it was actually so dull. One room, with not a lot happening in it. I know Snowden was/is trapped in a similar environ, but there's no need to inflict it on us all, and have no interval. We really couldn't engage with any of the characters. Jack Farthing does his best, but taking his top off does seem like a desperate measure. How Dunne has learnt all the facts and wikipedia style ramblings is beyond me. She deserves a medal. HEr and Farthing try their best with the "witty banter" moments, but they die a death because they're surrounded by dry theorising. Mackay tries to inject some Pinter/mysterious force into proceedings, but again, dull. So many pauses in it all, supposedly significant: folding a chocolate bar wrapper, pouring a drink…bore off!

The set change at the end WAS visually impressive, but was basically bashing the audience over the head with its metaphor. Nothing exists. Nothing is real. Am I here? Are you here?

Engage us.  Give us some drama.  

No, no, no, no, no.

Poor.

Don't let the set change blind you.  Remember how you feel in the first 1hr 30mins.  

Can you give spoiler please

Of the set change

It's Miriam

Does it change to Bend It Like Beckham?!

If only it did change to BILB!

Anything.

Oh it was SO obvious.  I hated it.  I really fear it will blind people into thinking the play is more than it is, which is 90minutes of discussion discussion discussion.    

It's like they read the play, reapplied even at the end that it was building to nothing, and thought Crap, let's put a dramatic scene change in.  

Terrible.

When you go, Parsley, can you let your BILB ringtone go off every so often.  It would add some drama for the audience (and evening).

[RedRose]

Yes, put it in spoilers please. Yes, it is certainly one of Bartlett's weaker plays. And partly a bit too wordy and the political messages are lazily put in and too obvious- so much better done in the other new play I've seen this week: Sunset at the Villa Thalia.
To be honest - I liked how a lot of the audience were confused by the technical problem. If this was actually not a problem but part of the play it would be genius!

[

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler - click to view}Nothing is as it seams, or is it?!
It's a bit Cabin in the Woods.
I love how amazingly they move (or not) during the set change, especially Jack Farthing.

As a whole thing I enjoyed it and it's a typical Mike Barlett and I like all of his work I've seen so far.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2016 23:05:27 GMT RedRose said:

Yes, put it in spoilers please. Yes, it is certainly one of Bartlett's weaker plays. And partly a bit too wordy and the political messages are lazily put in and too obvious- so much better done in the other new play I've seen this week: Sunset at the Villa Thalia.
To be honest - I liked how a lot of the audience were confused by the technical problem. If this was actually not a problem but part of the play it would be genius!

[

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler - click to view}Nothing is as it seams, or is it?!
It's a bit Cabin in the Woods.
I love how amazingly they move (or not) during the set change, especially Jack Farthing.

As a whole thing I enjoyed it and it's a typical Mike Barlett and I like all of his work I've seen so far.

Mike Bartlett is 35

So am I

He looks old enough to be my dad

[Deleted]

He's 35!?!?!!!!??!!!

I genuinely thought he was pushing 50! Poor guy, success has obviously been tiring. I suggest Vaseline

[Steve]

Bartlett has great topical ideas once again, but this time he has no dramatic vehicle to express them, save, that is, for his wonderful coup de theatre at the end.

In fact, the coup de theatre tells the story in and of itself, so this could be reduced to one of those punchy 10 minute plays that Caryl Churchill is specialising in these days, without too much loss.

The reason this play is singularly undramatic is that the Edward Snowden character, Andrew (played sympathetically by Jack Farthing) starts off at an all time low: he has betrayed the US Government, and he's holed up in a hotel room in Russia, isolated and alone, unable to speak the language and at the mercy of his handlers.

So when we meet his handlers, played by a stubbornly insincere black leather jacket and mini-skirt wearing Caoilfhionn Dunne, and a severe and sincere suit-wearing John Mackay, they already have him at their mercy. No matter how much they needle him, we are never under any illusion that he has any power to resist whatever happens. All three actors are excellent, in my view, but they are all trapped by dramatic inertia.

Like Bull, this is a threehander, in which two savvy people poke and prod at a less savvy person, but in that play, the latter chap had everything to lose, which is why it was so gripping, whereas in this play, Farthing's Andrew has already lost everything that matters.

Bartlett typically has loads to say about the surveillance society we are living in, as we happily tell Google and Facebook, and hence the Security Services, everything about ourselves willingly, which, suggests Bartlett, makes Andrew's (aka Edward Snowden's) revelations redundant. But it's all "tell," and no "show," for the most part, because of the essentially undramatic set-up.

All the "show" comes at the end, with that coup de theatre, and it's SO good that the production is close to unmissable!

3 and a half stars (one of those stars is purely for the coup de theatre, it's concept and it's execution).

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2016 23:29:40 GMT Steve said:

Bartlett has great topical ideas once again, but this time he has no dramatic vehicle to express them, save, that is, for his wonderful coup de theatre at the end.

In fact, the coup de theatre tells the story in and of itself, so this could be reduced to one of those punchy 10 minute plays that Caryl Churchill is specialising in these days, without too much loss.

The reason this play is singularly undramatic is that the Edward Snowden character, Andrew (played sympathetically by Jack Farthing) starts off at an all time low: he has betrayed the US Government, and he's holed up in a hotel room in Russia, isolated and alone, unable to speak the language and at the mercy of his handlers.

So when we meet his handlers, played by a stubbornly insincere black leather jacket and mini-skirt wearing Caoilfhionn Dunne, and a severe and sincere suit-wearing John Mackay, they already have him at their mercy. No matter how much they needle him, we are never under any illusion that he has any power to resist whatever happens. All three actors are excellent, in my view, but they are all trapped by dramatic inertia.

Like Bull, this is a threehander, in which two savvy people poke and prod at a less savvy person, but in that play, the latter chap had everything to lose, which is why it was so gripping, whereas in this play, Farthing's Andrew has already lost everything that matters.

Bartlett typically has loads to say about the surveillance society we are living in, as we happily tell Google and Facebook, and hence the Security Services, everything about ourselves willingly, which, suggests Bartlett, makes Andrew's (aka Edward Snowden's) revelations redundant. But it's all "tell," and no "show," for the most part, because of the essentially undramatic set-up.

All the "show" comes at the end, with that coup de theatre, and it's SO good that the production is close to unmissable!

3 and a half stars (one of those stars is purely for the coup de theatre, it's concept and it's execution).

Please
Can you

Do a detailed spoiler for me

On the ending and set etc.

I am not seeing until next week and am impatient!

Thanks for your time

Hope you are well!

[nash16]

Jun 22, 2016 23:29:40 GMT Steve said:

Bartlett has great topical ideas once again, but this time he has no dramatic vehicle to express them, save, that is, for his wonderful coup de theatre at the end.

In fact, the coup de theatre tells the story in and of itself, so this could be reduced to one of those punchy 10 minute plays that Caryl Churchill is specialising in these days, without too much loss.

The reason this play is singularly undramatic is that the Edward Snowden character, Andrew (played sympathetically by Jack Farthing) starts off at an all time low: he has betrayed the US Government, and he's holed up in a hotel room in Russia, isolated and alone, unable to speak the language and at the mercy of his handlers.

So when we meet his handlers, played by a stubbornly insincere black leather jacket and mini-skirt wearing Caoilfhionn Dunne, and a severe and sincere suit-wearing John Mackay, they already have him at their mercy. No matter how much they needle him, we are never under any illusion that he has any power to resist whatever happens. All three actors are excellent, in my view, but they are all trapped by dramatic inertia.

Like Bull, this is a threehander, in which two savvy people poke and prod at a less savvy person, but in that play, the latter chap had everything to lose, which is why it was so gripping, whereas in this play, Farthing's Andrew has already lost everything that matters.

Bartlett typically has loads to say about the surveillance society we are living in, as we happily tell Google and Facebook, and hence the Security Services, everything about ourselves willingly, which, suggests Bartlett, makes Andrew's (aka Edward Snowden's) revelations redundant. But it's all "tell," and no "show," for the most part, because of the essentially undramatic set-up.

All the "show" comes at the end, with that coup de theatre, and it's SO good that the production is close to unmissable!

3 and a half stars (one of those stars is purely for the coup de theatre, it's concept and it's execution).

You've said what I wanted to in a much more eloquent manner, Steve.  And you're right, it could be a 10minute piece, and all the better for it.  Some dialogue, the scene change, Bob's Your Uncle!  Hadn't seen the similarities with BULL, but now see them clearly.  Great review!

[chameleon]

So, essentially, this is like 'Game'? A weak script with a great design?