Complicite's Mnemonic- National Theatre

[frauleinsallybowles]

Jun 28, 2024 9:32:43 GMT Adalea said:

Saw this yesterday in one of the front seats. They're cushioned folding chairs, a little narrower than regular chairs but leg room is fine.

I enjoyed it. It's certainly quite abstract, but it somehow works. I especially liked the first half hour, don't want to spoil it because it's quite the unique for a theatre performance.

There is a lot of nudity in the play, just be aware of that especially if you're booking front row. They hand out phone pouches when you enter, though they are not locked.

How was the view from the front row seats? The stage looks quite high from the photos I could see but I was thinking of booking the 5th or 6th row in the added folding seats. Though there doesn’t seem to be a rake (?) any further back seems like I would feel out of the action

[rumbledoll]

Help me out please.. exactly how much nudity is in this? I’m taking a friend who doesn’t go much to the theatre but kinda trusts my taste. I booked front row because I always book front row to be closer to the action. I just don’t want it to be too overwhelming an experience for her..

[Steve]

Jun 29, 2024 18:07:57 GMT rumbledoll said:

Help me out please.. exactly how much nudity is in this? I’m taking a friend who doesn’t go much to the theatre but kinda trusts my taste. I booked front row because I always book front row to be closer to the action. I just don’t want it to be too overwhelming an experience for her..

Khalid Abdalla plays the role originated by the director, Simon McBurney. His role is to explain the play to us, to get us to relate to it. One of the things McBurney evidently believes is that we are united by nakedness, as we're all born that way. Clothes divide us.

Consequently, Abdalla is required to be full frontal naked, standing and talking, for significant portions of the running time, and also naked from behind in an almost impossibly athletic pose for equally significant portions of time.

There is nothing suggestive or remarkable about the scenes. Its just nudity.

Abdalla also wears a blue shirt, which he uses mnemonic tricks to get us to remember the colour, whereupon he immediately changes into a gold shirt (which I remembered in case it was a trick to ask us what colour shirt he was wearing - it wasn't a trick lol).

Ultimately, the nudity is not offensive in any way. Its just an aspect to get us to feel common bonds as humans.

For the person who asked about seating, I was in the Ninth row (Row C), usually the third row, and felt it offered a very good view of the production, as it's raked, and the action on the stage is expansive, with stuff often going on on both sides of the stage.

I also liked the look of the front stalls seats that were raked, maybe Row 4, as that Row also looked raked over Row 3, and offers a more expansive view than Row 1, which might give you a bit of tennis neck, looking left and right constantly, although the stage height looked to me like it would be perfectly reasonable from Row 1.

[edi]

So it's male nudity and non- gratuitous?

[rumbledoll]

Steve, thank you so much for taking time to explain it!

[starlight92]

What about the violence, how bad is it? Saw this in the content warnings:

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler - click to view}This production also features depictions of violence and death, and images of human remains.

[nottobe]

I saw this last night and while I liked it, I have to say I felt underwhelmed. 

I think I've only seen one Complicite show before but of course when this was announced and having heard so much acclaim from the original run I was interested in seeing it. So maybe I went in with certain expectations and there may be slight spoilers. 

For me this play was not really about memory at all and I was prepared to watch a piece that would make me grapple with the idea of memory and age, however the idea of memory only seems to really be in the opening monologue. The rest of the play isn't actually about memory but more facts and finding the truth of someone through facts, like the ice mummy or who Alice's dad really was. She doesn't ever actually remember him and maybe this is the point but I thought the play would be more cathartic. 

Expectations aside the acting here is all very strong and obviously the staging is clever but story wise I can't really see the need to bring thus back 25 years later. There are many other current shows I would say that warrant viewing. I did enjoy it enough and am glad I have seen it but it did not do anything for me.

[jek]

I saw this last night. I think for me the problem was that what must have looked spectacular and new 20 odd years ago didn't seem that way now. I've seen a lot of Complicite over the years and I think my favourite remains A Disappearing Number (but that may have something to do with the circumstances in which I saw that). I felt like I'd seen a lot of this before. Obviously the performances were strong. Extra interesting for us as we have a personal connection with Khalid Abdalla's father, so it was interesting to hear him talk about him in the introduction - we didn't even know he was in the cast at the time we booked.

This is certainly one of those cases where it was worth buying the programme. An excellent essay by a neuroscientist, now a professor at Columbia University, who saw the original production.

[blaxx]

I was about to book a trip from Canada just to see this, as back in the day it was described by many as one of the biggest triumphs to ever grace a stage.

These opinions are now giving me second thoughts. Maybe just cross my fingers it's released on NT Live?

[oedipus]

I saw this last night, and my expectations couldn't have been higher: McBurney's direction of _All My Sons_ in NYC remains one of the most powerful evenings I've spent in a theater. I was really looking forward to seeing what his own company could devise.

Well, now I know. And I'm kinda disappointed. The first 10 minutes reminded me of a TED talk, which then morphs into two barely connected stories. The first was sort of interesting (about the discovery of Ötzi the Iceman); the second was a woman's quest in search of her father, which I found particularly disjointed and unsatisfying.

The technical and design aspects are excellent: projections, puppets, even some choreography. But the whole thing came across as a hodgepodge of images and scenes, sometimes only tenuously linked to each other. Most likely, they were aiming for dreamlike; but a little bit goes a long way.

Clearly, the original production was famous and influential, and I'm glad I saw it for its historical value. I agree with nottobe, however, that perhaps there wasn't any great urgency for a revival.

[jek]

Five stars in the Financial Times from Sarah Hemming who describes it as 'a luminous piece of theatre, witty, elusive, intensely beautiful and humane'. Although even she says that 'it is a little long and some points about climate and the current wars feel clunky'. Given it's a relatively short run I wonder if there are plans to tour it.

[helenfrombath]

I saw the original production and thought it was phenomenal. I saw this production and while I didn't hate it I didn't think it was amazing. Maybe the original production was lightning in a bottle? The world is a very different place than it was 20 years ago and I am a very different person than I was 20 years ago so maybe that had something to do with it. If asked, I would say that if you saw the original production, you don't need to see this revival.

[mrnutz]

Jul 9, 2024 5:50:05 GMT blaxx said:

I was about to book a trip from Canada just to see this, as back in the day it was described by many as one of the biggest triumphs to ever grace a stage.

These opinions are now giving me second thoughts. Maybe just cross my fingers it's released on NT Live?

I wouldn't...

[mrnutz]

Something else that annoyed me about this production - why have they turned the Olivier into a proscenium theatre in order to stage it? Why not put it in the Lyttelton, or any other of London's proscenium theatres?

[jr]

I've returned my ticket based on reviews and comments here. I was interested when it was announced but it seems a bit of a letdown.

[solotheatregoer]

Khalid Abdalla is the best thing about this production. Aside from having the most lovely voice (I hope he has done some audio books!) he gives a very polished performance here and I thought he held the entire cast together. He has great stage presence even during the extended times he is on stage but not talking.

I knew nothing of this play beforehand but I really enjoyed it overall.

Four stars.

Nice to see the National recycled the plastic sheeting from London Tide too 😂

My biggest issue was the seating. I was front row centre and whilst the seats themselves weren’t too uncomfortable, the stage is very, very high and it was difficult to look up for such a long time. Anything further back (even one row back) will be fine as there’s quite a big jump from row 1 to row 2 and then the rest of the rows looked better raked.

I’ve been slightly disappointed with my last National visits recently but this did bring things up slightly. The last show I remember really enjoying was Phaedra but nothing seems to have come close since then. I don’t have any more visits planned at the National for the remainder of this year but I’m really hoping things pick up in 2025.

[blaxx]

Jul 9, 2024 13:20:54 GMT mrnutz said:

Jul 9, 2024 5:50:05 GMT blaxx said:

I was about to book a trip from Canada just to see this, as back in the day it was described by many as one of the biggest triumphs to ever grace a stage.

These opinions are now giving me second thoughts. Maybe just cross my fingers it's released on NT Live?

I wouldn't...

Sounds like it, thanks for the feedback!

[greenandbrownandblue]

Jul 9, 2024 21:48:49 GMT solotheatregoer said:

Khalid Abdalla is the best thing about this production. Aside from having the most lovely voice (I hope he has done some audio books!) he gives a very polished performance here and I thought he held the entire cast together. He has great stage presence even during the extended times he is on stage but not talking.

I knew nothing of this play beforehand but I really enjoyed it overall.

Four stars.

Nice to see the National recycled the plastic sheeting from London Tide too 😂

My biggest issue was the seating. I was front row centre and whilst the seats themselves weren’t too uncomfortable, the stage is very, very high and it was difficult to look up for such a long time. Anything further back (even one row back) will be fine as there’s quite a big jump from row 1 to row 2 and then the rest of the rows looked better raked.

I concur with everything said here. Definitely go for CC over BB.

I was in BB and got quite bad neck ache. The show itself is good - though I can't help but feel it didn't live up to what I was expecting. How different is it from the 1999 version?

Agree that Khalid Abdalla is superb in this.

[cavocado]

Jul 2, 2024 16:38:33 GMT nottobe said:

For me this play was not really about memory at all and I was prepared to watch a piece that would make me grapple with the idea of memory and age, however the idea of memory only seems to really be in the opening monologue. The rest of the play isn't actually about memory but more facts and finding the truth of someone through facts, like the ice mummy or who Alice's dad really was. She doesn't ever actually remember him and maybe this is the point but I thought the play would be more cathartic. 

I also was expecting it to be more about personal memory - and the introductory monologue reinforces that a bit, but it was more interesting to me that it was about collective memory, what makes us cohere as a culture, how we relate to the past and who we exclude from our cultural identities. I liked how there were so many little points where different stories collide, through minor characters like the taxi driver.

I had high expectations which weren't entirely fulfilled, and it felt very dated in some respects. But I'm glad I saw it and I enjoyed thinking about it afterwards as much as watching it.

[khiar]

I was surprised that it didn't focus on memory in the ways I expected, but I loved the parallels of piecing together the father's life from his relations and connections, and piecing together how Ötzi may have lived and died. The evidence of the father felt so flimsy and fragmentary, she may as well have been doing neolithic archaeology, but creating that story for herself was enough. I wouldn't have chosen 'memory' as the frame at all - It deals so much more with narratives and origins and truth. But it spoke volumes about the things it did cover.

But then, if as the play says, memory is an imaginative and creative act, then memories and narratives are one and the same - so the speculated past of the father or the iceman may as well be a memory?

Middle of row FF was an excellent seat, close enough to the action, no neck strain, I suppose I missed a bit of the view through the tarp but I didn't mind it. A steal for £20.

[barelyathletic]

Saw this on Friday and, until the scene with the bed and the revolving cycle of actors, I completely forgot I saw this in 2001! So much for my memory. I thought it was fine and if it comes back in another 23 years will probably have forgotten all about it again.

[Being Alive]

Oh I thought this was absolutely knock out.

It's Art with a capital A, and I loved every second of it.

[bigredapple]

I really, really didn’t get this.

I was expecting something great, given the promo mentioning it being a standout theatrical experience for many from 25 years ago etc.

I was just bored? It didn’t make much sense.
Can anyone explain how any of it is relevant? What point were they trying to make?

I kept waiting and waiting for it all to wrap together with something groundbreaking at the end, thinking my jaw would drop.

I wasn’t sure about the opening monologue at the time, but it turned out to be the best part of the show. I expected that theme to be carried throughout

[alessia]

Jul 19, 2024 21:32:08 GMT bigredapple said:

I really, really didn’t get this.

I was expecting something great, given the promo mentioning it being a standout theatrical experience for many from 25 years ago etc.

I was just bored? It didn’t make much sense.
Can anyone explain how any of it is relevant? What point were they trying to make?

I kept waiting and waiting for it all to wrap together with something groundbreaking at the end, thinking my jaw would drop.

I wasn’t sure about the opening monologue at the time, but it turned out to be the best part of the show. I expected that theme to be carried throughout

I also felt that the first 30 minutes or so were the best part of this. Perhaps it was me being tired but after the interactive segment - my attention started to drop a little. I felt that it went in a direction that wasn't how the play started, and I'd have liked it more if it had continued along the idea of personal memories. I can't quite put my finger on why at times it feels dated (some of the jokes maybe? My friend and I were trying to work it out afterwards)- perhaps also the design and choreography- 25 years ago this would have been jaw dropping but now? I've seen similar setups many times before. 
I liked it but I was expecting to love it so felt a little disappointed at the end. Also 2 hours without a break is a bit much.

[nancycunard]

I really enjoyed the first half an hour of this, as everyone else has mentioned, but did just find the rest a little long and meandering. Khalid Abdalla is fabulous though.