The Effect - NT Lyttleton

[kate8]

solotheatregoer no it’s not off-centre. Basically there’s a narrow stage across the theatre where the front stalls would normally be, and two banks of raked seating facing each other either side - what would normally be the stage and the back of the stalls.

Yes, visible mics and a minimal design. A plain stage that lights up white, either the whole thing or a relevant section, the couple always in the centre, the doctors sitting on chairs at either end, just one prop. I thought the design worked well.

I felt like Russell and Essiedu didn’t have the chemistry yet, so was hard to feel invested in their emotions, but that’s unfair to judge on the first preview. Russell’s performance was similar to Emilia Clark in The Seagull - whispery, anxious and that filmic intimacy you can get with microphones - very JL, but to me that doesn’t feel fresh any more. Although that’s not a criticism of TR. she and PE (who I loved in A Number last year) were both very watchable and I think the chemistry will improve with each performance. For the moment Michelle Austin seemed to be carrying a lot more of the emotional weight than intended.

[foxa]

I saw the original production with Billie Piper and Jonjo O'Neill l and loved it. Given that, I decided to wait to book for this one as unless it's great, I don't want to tarnish that memory.The original production(IMO) was really ALL about the couple and their intensity/intimacy/charisma (as well as Prebble's excellent writing and big ideas.) You were so rooting for them. If the doctor characters are making more of an impression, that seems off-kilter to me.

[jr]

And The Effect was boredom... I really struggled to stay until the end.

The premise of the play is plainly wrong. No researcher would know who is on placebo or given the real drug. After 20 minutes I disconnected and found the play a drag. The direction is very basic; and bad when they use pulsating noise to mark intense parts, not even a student would do that. I found the male actors weak, Paapa Essiedu particularly bad: constant twitching and moving around for no reason. A big part of the audience seemed to attend just to see him, lots of ohs and ahs every time he did something.

It got an standing ovation so it might be me.

[TallPaul]

There's blind, isn't there, and double-blind?

[jr]

Aug 5, 2023 7:56:45 GMT TallPaul said:

There's blind, isn't there, and double-blind?

Yes, and triple blind, which eliminate further bias.

I don't want to spoil it for others but subsequent actions in the play are also ridiculous.

[blaxx]

Aug 5, 2023 7:18:26 GMT jr said:

And The Effect was boredom... I really struggled to stay until the end.

The premise of the play is plainly wrong. No researcher would know who is on placebo or given the real drug. After 20 minutes I disconnected and found the play a drag. The direction is very basic; and bad when they use pulsating noise to mark intense parts, not even a student would do that. I found the male actors weak, Paapa Essiedu particularly bad: constant twitching and moving around for no reason. A big part of the audience seemed to attend just to see him, lots of ohs and ahs every time he did something.

It got an standing ovation so it might be me.

You just called JL worse than a student? 😞

[c4ndyc4ne]

Aug 5, 2023 17:15:29 GMT blaxx said:

Aug 5, 2023 7:18:26 GMT jr said:

And The Effect was boredom... I really struggled to stay until the end.

The premise of the play is plainly wrong. No researcher would know who is on placebo or given the real drug. After 20 minutes I disconnected and found the play a drag. The direction is very basic; and bad when they use pulsating noise to mark intense parts, not even a student would do that. I found the male actors weak, Paapa Essiedu particularly bad: constant twitching and moving around for no reason. A big part of the audience seemed to attend just to see him, lots of ohs and ahs every time he did something.

It got an standing ovation so it might be me.

You just called JL worse than a student? 😞

“ they use pulsating noise to mark intense parts” - I swear most directors do this

[jr]

I have seen and liked many things directed by Jamie Lloyd. I saw all of the short Pinter plays and it was a fantastic season. Sadly, this one for me it was terrible.

And yes, pointing things to the audience so obviously instead of letting us feel them is not something I expect from an experienced director.

[Steve]

Aug 5, 2023 20:53:55 GMT c4ndyc4ne said:

Aug 5, 2023 17:15:29 GMT blaxx said:

You just called JL worse than a student? 😞

“ they use pulsating noise to mark intense parts” - I swear most directors do this

I saw this tonight and, in my opinion, never has the use of pulsating music been more appropriate, as it has an "effect" on the audience, and it not only successfully (for me) has that effect, but it also has a corresponding meta-effect, whereby Jamie Lloyd's visceral manipulation of the audience echoes the psychiatrists' manipulation of their patients.

I absolutely LOVED this version of the play, a completely original take on the material, just as I loved Rupert Goold's original Cottesloe version. They are very different and complementary takes on the material. Of the two, I marginally prefer this version, precisely because of the way it positions and manipulates the audience.

My only caveat is that you do have to imagine you are living in a world where blind, double-blind and triple-blind trials (per the comment above) are not quite a thing, but that is on Prebble (who gets everything else right), not Goold or Lloyd.

Some spoilers follow. . .

Anyway, Lloyd's style of directing is not fixed, it's always evolving. Anyone who didn't like those experiments in listening, that were "The Seagull" and "Cyrano de Bergerac" can rest easy that this is no simple repetition of that style. After all, someone has noted that Lloyd directed "She Stoops to Conquer" at the National, and that was a traditional period costumed comic joy.

Lloyd's manipulation of the audience begins as soon as you enter the auditorium to thumping low beats and a traverse theatre with a rake so steep the two sides of the audience are almost at war with each other. Indeed, the rake is so steep that even though the stage is in the middle of the auditorium, nonetheless the stalls go right up to meet the circle in a clean line! Even a basketballer (my eternal dread) sitting in front of you couldn't obstruct your view lol!

The intense psychological effect of the environment is of arriving at a massive event, like a boxing match, ready to do battle, if only with your own mind.

As to the background music, that persists through the show, albeit at varying volumes, I recall how I once got free tickets to that Finsbury Park "Rage Against the Machine" concert (to celebrate the X factor failing to reach Number 1 in the Charts lol), and not knowing their music, I listened on my iPod walking down the street. Suddenly, I really wasn't myself at all: I was a kind of Terminator not to be messed with! I was shocked at how alien I felt to myself.

Everything Jamie Lloyd does here conditioned me similarly: the steep rake, the pulsing music, the sight of the similarly lined up mirror audience on the other side, and the lowered lighting rig (which must move grandly upwards to signal the production's start) suggested a massive event about to happen.

When the event did start, the spotlit monochrome white outfits and hoodies, on the two trial patients (Papa Essiedu and Taylor Russell), suggested saintly boxers or maybe astronauts about to go where noone has gone before!

In the wings, the ever-present, often-seated, clinician-psychiatrists (Michele Austin and Kobna Holdbrook-Smith) were dressed in similarly monochromatic, yet oppositional black outfits, worldly-wise controls physically and psychologically corralling and containing their saintly innocent astronauts of the mind.

And the event we had all been primed and waiting for was Lucy Prebble's characters' words, broadcast by microphones like in "The Seagull," with the effect of personalising those thoughts and words, even at the level of a whisper, but acted naturalistically for us under the spotlight, more like the relationship in the play, "Constellations" than in the frozen experiment of Lloyd's "The Seagull."

The omnipresence of the watching clinicians on stage, Michele Austin all compassion, Holdbrook-Smith all intellectual distance, heightened the vulnerability of their patients' interactions, the sense of threat, just as Zawe Ashton, Tom Hiddleston and Charlie Cox once threateningly circled each other in Jamie Lloyd's "Betrayal."

That Lloyd has multiple effects at work here, some of which we've seen before from him, but never all together: the intimate audio, the bass music as if the auditorium has a heartbeat, the grand positioning of the audience for a great event, lighting like Caravaggio, the oppositional postures of the actors toward each other, the awareness of the audience of each other - all these things enhance the themes of the play but also highlight Lloyd's ever-continuing evolution as a director, intent on creating visceral experiences that are unique to theatre.

I loved the performances in this play too: Russell is reassuring gentleness, an affected submission to those around her that can't quite hide a piercing intelligence and aloofness; Essiedu is unpredictable and funny, alternately relaxed and wired; Austin is deeply thoughtful and compassionate and Holdbrook-Smith is sinisterly quiet (avoiding eye-contact in a fastidious way that made me fear a potential eruption of violence, like he once scarily erupted as Ike Turner in the Tina Turner Musical) but when he does break his silent musing, and looks up, his erudition and manners are perhaps scarier still , in the context the play.

All in all, I feel this is a terrific and original exploration of the material, manipulating us as easily as experimental drugs manipulate the characters, and incredibly topical, as AI begins similarly manipulating everything we've ever known. 4 and a half stars from me, weakened only by Prebble's set-up not being consistent with science as we know it. Terrific nonetheless.

PS: The running time was 1 hour, 40 minutes, straight through, as advertised, although it began ten minutes late, so ended at 9:20pm.

[greenswan]

I'm afraid I didn't get on with this yesterday evening - rather suspect this is my fault as I found the temporary seating very uncomfortable. A lot of the audience around me gave a standing ovation at the end though.

Setting aside scientific good practice, I mainly couldn't really make out any coherent arguments throughout. Instead it was funny set pieces interspersed with a lot of boredom. I ended up checking my watch every couple of minutes an hour in.

[dr]

Enjoyed this on Friday evening. The concept is immediately interesting, and Lucy Prebble's writing is consistently entertaining and thought-provoking. The transformation of the Lyttelton is impressive, adding a new level of tension and observation for the characters. Soutra Gilmour's set design is predictably sparse, but complemented by stunning lighting design from Jon Clark which nicely punctuates the action. This is alongside intense sound design by George Denis, with an original underscore, which adds a sense of pace and really heighten the power of the text.

As he does best, Jamie Lloyd allows the text to shine, with his classic H&M costume design and use of mics for amplification. Performances from Paapa Essiedu and Taylor Russell are convincing - the chemistry between Tristan and Connie isn't quite captivating yet, but I imagine that it'll settle very nicely further into the run. As mentioned by others, Michele Austin is a real standout, and Dr James feels like the real focus of this production (I'm not sure whether this was true of the original production, but the spotlight does feel a little misplaced on her.)

It received a very quick standing ovation on Friday, and I think that this will be a hit with younger audiences. It's effortlessly cool and relevant to current discourse surrounding mental health. In my opinion, another immense success in the Lyttelton this year.

[jampot]

Aug 6, 2023 14:26:21 GMT dr said:

Enjoyed this on Friday evening. The concept is immediately interesting, and Lucy Prebble's writing is consistently entertaining and thought-provoking. The transformation of the Lyttelton is impressive, adding a new level of tension and observation for the characters. Soutra Gilmour's set design is predictably sparse, but complemented by stunning lighting design from Jon Clark which nicely punctuates the action. This is alongside intense sound design by George Denis, with an original underscore, which adds a sense of pace and really heighten the power of the text.

As he does best, Jamie Lloyd allows the text to shine, with his classic H&M costume design and use of mics for amplification. Performances from Paapa Essiedu and Taylor Russell are convincing - the chemistry between Tristan and Connie isn't quite captivating yet, but I imagine that it'll settle very nicely further into the run. As mentioned by others, Michele Austin is a real standout, and Dr James feels like the real focus of this production (I'm not sure whether this was true of the original production, but the spotlight does feel a little misplaced on her.)

It received a very quick standing ovation on Friday, and I think that this will be a hit with younger audiences. It's effortlessly cool and relevant to current discourse surrounding mental health. In my opinion, another immense success in the Lyttelton this year.

Saw this last night and personally I thought it was fantastic from top to bottom...I knew nothing about it.. It felt fresh and modern to me and very edgy. Staging and sound top notch giving it a really clinical exciting approach. Was on the edge of my seat at times.. Taylor Russell looks a very gifted actress..Hope we see more of her...Standing ovation at the end..

[mrnutz]

I really enjoyed this on Friday night, just as I remember really enjoying the original. Excellent performances all round.

It's staged very differently from its Cottesloe debut and the Lyttleton is unrecognisable (a reason to go by itself), but I found the fold-down stadium seating they're using throughout the stalls to be extremely uncomfortable - and very narrow. Prepare to brush closely against your neighbour(s). An interval would have helped relieve some of the pain.

Fantastic to see such a young and diverse crowd at the National, too.

4/5

[cavocado]

I thought this was good but I didn't love it - 3 stars. I didn't see the original version, so can't compare, but I just didn't care enough about the main two characters, and agree with comments about the plot being implausible. I also agree that Michele Austin was the standout.

Re the temporary seating, it's not hugely comfortable, but has lots of legroom, and it was quite interesting to see the theatre from the stage seating.

[mrnutz]

Poll please, BurlyBeaR!

[BurlyBeaR]

Poll added.

[jek]

We have tickets for the circle to see this later this week. Is the circle configured as it normally is? I'm finding it hard to get my head around the way the theatre has been changed for this production.

[sallims]

Aug 9, 2023 8:36:06 GMT jek said:

We have tickets for the circle to see this later this week. Is the circle configured as it normally is? I'm finding it hard to get my head around the way the theatre has been changed for this production.

Yes

[jek]

Thankyou sallims

[jek]

Went last night and have to say it wasn't for me. I think the problem is that it considers matters - the origins of depression, big pharma, drug trial ethics - which, if you are older (I am sixty), you've probably spent quite a bit of time thinking about. You will probably have also seen them explored by various art forms. What I did think was good was that the presence of black actors inevitably served to remind of the particularly nasty history of medical experiments on black people - the Tuskegee syphilis trial and the Henrietta Lacks cell line spring to mind. If you are younger I think this is a fine introduction to those topics and I have certainly recommended it to my 22 year old daughter. It was really good to see a young and diverse audience at the theatre. The only disappointment was that there were lots of empty seats on the stage (we were in the circle and so had a good view of that) and, in fact, the ushers moved people down to fill up the gaps at the front just before the play started. Must be disappointing for a Friday night and when the reviews were so good.

[theatrefan77]

I saw the original production with Billie Piper and enjoyed it very much. For me this new production is just boring and I really struggled with it. Maybe it's because I was familiar with the story and I knew the twists. The acting was at best adequate and the staging just awful. Not sure if they were trying to create a dystopian atmosphere. Whatever it was it didn't work for me.

[solotheatregoer]

Three stars for me. I thought this was very well acted but I found it all a bit dull. I also found some elements of the plot to be pretty predictable. I love Jamie Lloyd and his staging, but I didn't feel it worked well at all in this production.

Full house with standing ovation at the end though. 

[lichtie]

I though the production here suited the material, and the cast gave it their best. Perhaps the stripped back nature of the production helped reveal more clearly that the play itself is unfortunately tripe of the highest order.

[Forrest]

I really wanted to enjoy this - mostly because my score with Prebble's plays so far has been loved (Enron): hated (the something something poison at the Old Vic) - 1:1 - but I really didn't. 

I thought the text was too obvious (the contrast between the two narratives, real attraction vs. fake), the way that it ended just somehow felt unnecessary, the discrepancy between the doctor wanting to be seen as professional and being utterly unprofessional throughout was frustrating, and the premise was simply unrealistic (the obvious fact that everyone knows, fully or partially, which subjects are on which medication). But it was the staging that fully ruined it for me. Any sense of intimacy was killed by the fact that everyone was wearing microphones. The brain in the box and the pulsating music felt like cheap tricks. And I thought that the main characters had no chemistry onstage, although a friend partially salvaged this one by telling me that she saw it as a deliberate choice: there was no chemistry because they really didn't have any, it was all drug-induced.

Overall, I found the production rather tedious and forgettable. (I found myself waiting for it to be over, which is never a good sign.)

[robwilton]

Another Jamie Lloyd trainwreck!