The River - Greenwich Theatre

[Dave B]

greenwichtheatre.org.uk/events/jez-butterworths-the-river/

October, starring Paul McGann

[aspieandy]

Thanks for flagging this. It's an interesting proposition.

Looking at Billington's review of the original production at the Royal Court (with Dominic West and .... Laura Donnelly (what happened to HER)), you don't have to be a 'Jez completist' to consider making the trip to Greenwich.

Fwiw, in chronological order The River came after Jerusalem and before The Ferryman.

www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/27/the-river-jez-butterworth-review

Billy endeth thusly:

This is not, in the end, as resonant and public a play as Jerusalem. But it adopts a similarly equivocal attitude to its hero, is endlessly mysterious and confirms that Butterworth possesses a singular talent.

[drmaplewood]

I saw the Court producion and its definitely more "low key" Jez but very haunting and it stayed with me.

[alicechallice]

I remember liking the bit about Monster Munch.

[talkingheads]

£33.50 was a lot cheaper than I was expecting.

[rumbledoll]

Exciting! More Jez and I think Paul McGann is properly charismatic.
Shame I can’t book just yet since my Autumn travel plans still need some synchronising..

[joem]

Just bought tickets for this! Thank goodness I found out about it only this morning, no idea how I missed it but then I have no idea how I missed the original after my Jerusalem rhapsodies. A strangely (to me) elusive play.

[aspieandy]

A heads up; it might suit some to know this production has Sunday performances at 5pm, which might fit with a trip to other delights in the area including the market, park and this lot : www.rmg.co.uk/

[Steve]

Sept 7, 2024 12:21:45 GMT joem said:

Just bought tickets for this! Thank goodness I found out about it only this morning, no idea how I missed it but then I have no idea how I missed the original after my Jerusalem rhapsodies. A strangely (to me) elusive play.

Yes. It eluded me too at the Royal Court because you couldn't book it in advance, but on the day only, and when I had a free day, I missed every time lol.

I booked in advance this time as soon as Dave opened the thread, although I'm aware there really is no need with this theatre.

[Latecomer]

I remember the fish cookery…..enjoyed it!

[barelyathletic]

I'd have thought this was a bit of a coup for Greenwich. But there seem to be tons of tickets available. Somebody needs to get on with marketing it. The first major revival in London since its acclaimed, impossible to get tickets for, RC premiere, and a bit of a name in the lead role. I'm surprised. Not complaining though. Two front row seats on a Friday night for £26 each! Bargain.

[Phantom of London]

£26 a ticket, gives them no marketing money though.

Greenwich theatre is a very hard sell, which is a shame, the theatre is quite local to me.

[Steve]

Saw this at today's matinee and enjoyed it, glad to finally see it after missing out on tickets 12 years ago.

On the other hand, reading Billington's review, flagged by aspieandy in the post above, I'm pretty sure that new director, James Haddrell has imposed a meaning on the play that it did not have 12 years ago.

The new mystery is now whether this is the meaning that Jez Butterworth intended, and that this iteration was approved by him, or whether Butterworth simply isn't possessive of his work, and allowed for Haddrell to do whatever he liked.

I love a feeling of resolution but also appreciate a tantalising unresolved mystery, so I don't mind one way or another.

I will say that either way, this is more of a mood piece than the other Butterworth plays I've seen, with less dynamic plot and more atmospheric mystery, and my taste veers to preferring his other plays.

Some spoilers follow. . .

This production opens with a little boy on stage. You can't unsee this, and it shapes your every supposition about what is going on for the rest of the play. From Billington's review, that boy was likely not in the original production of this play.

The obvious possibilities are that the boy is McGann's character himself at the Riverside Property sometime in the past, or the boy is McGann's son. Whether either of these obvious possibilities prove true is answered in the production's resolution, at least at the preview I saw.

McGann is, as rumbledoll suggested, "properly charismatic" and he kept me on tenterhooks as to what was going on with this pragmatic, lonely, dreamy fisherman, who has or has had at least two girlfriends at the property.

As the girlfriends, Amanda Ryan was winningly contrarian and Kerri McLean was winningly playful.

The performance by the "black stone" that McGann keeps wrapping and unwrapping was suitably enigmatic.

For me, 3 and a half stars of mysterious goings on.

[david]

Thanks again Steve for the early review. I was thinking of booking for this next month so your positive thoughts seem like a worthwhile trip to Greenwich. I was wondering which seating block to go for -the £33 front or are the cheaper £26 side blocks ok for this one. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

[Steve]

Oct 2, 2024 17:12:25 GMT david said:

Thanks again Steve for the early review. I was thinking of booking for this next month so your positive thoughts seem like a worthwhile trip to Greenwich. I was wondering which seating block to go for -the £33 front or are the cheaper £26 side blocks ok for this one. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

This has sold badly so far, and will be utterly dependent on reviews. The majority of people there were seat-filling, so I felt no guilt whatsoever about moving from a £25 seat to a £33 seat (there were plenty spare, and I moved from Row D side to Row D centre just before the 80 minutes without an interval commenced), as I was in the minority who paid. I was very grateful for the seatfillers who provided a proper theatre atmosphere in what would otherwise have been an embarrassingly empty situation.

The answer to your specific question is that the £25 seats are a bit more side-on than I would like, and I would prefer the £33 block of seats, as you don't have to see the back of one character's head half the time.

[david]

Oct 2, 2024 17:34:21 GMT Steve said:

Oct 2, 2024 17:12:25 GMT david said:

Thanks again Steve for the early review. I was thinking of booking for this next month so your positive thoughts seem like a worthwhile trip to Greenwich. I was wondering which seating block to go for -the £33 front or are the cheaper £26 side blocks ok for this one. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

This has sold badly so far, and will be utterly dependent on reviews. The majority of people there were seat-filling, so I felt no guilt whatsoever about moving from a £25 seat to a £33 seat (there were plenty spare, and I moved from Row D side to Row D centre just before the 80 minutes without an interval commenced), as I was in the minority who paid. I was very grateful for the seatfillers who provided a proper theatre atmosphere in what would otherwise have been an embarrassingly empty situation.

The answer to your specific question is that the £25 seats are a bit more side-on than I would like, and I would prefer the £33 block of seats, as you don't have to see the back of one character's head half the time.

Thanks for that Steve . I am looking at the last Wednesday matinee and as you say there are plenty of seats available. I am on certain email lists so will hang on to see what offers come up! 

[Phantom of London]

The Greenwich Theatre is like the old Trafalgar 1 theatre, if that helps.

[david]

Oct 2, 2024 19:17:40 GMT Phantom of London said:

The Greenwich Theatre is like the old Trafalgar 1 theatre, if that helps.

Thanks. That is a great help. 

[Dave B]

Oct 2, 2024 17:02:35 GMT Steve said:

I'm pretty sure that new director, James Haddrell has imposed a meaning on the play that it did not have 12 years ago.

Butterworth is involved and has updated the text which may or may not contribute here.

Going tomorrow!

[joem]

I was also at today's matinee. I find Steve's post really interesting because that is precisely the conclusion I drew from seeing it, based on the new additions by Butterworth or the director. If Jez is involved I can only assume (not having been able to catch the original either) that he felt too much was left in the air?

It is an atmospheric, intriguing play with some surprises and an undercurrent of menace (bit like Mojo) well played on by Paul McGann who delivers a controlled and subtle performance. Very ably assisted by Amanda Ryan and Kerri McLean. The oddest thing for me is how Butterworth followed up the donner und blitz of Jerusalem with this subdued and intimate work.

It's not expensive, there are many inferior plays and productions which sell out in the West End. For goodness sake, this really deserves a lot more bums on seats!

[Dave B]

I liked this a lot. Thought the cast were great, I had seen McGann here in one of their post-covid openings and was not one bit taken so a bit of trepidation about this but boy was I wrong. Such a presence and such charisma with both of the women. A clear case of showing and not telling about the relationships.

I don't think the prologue and epilogue make as much clear, I'm still left pondering it. A real folk tale with a haunting, literal or perhaps metaphorical.

Stunning set, would not have been out of place in Almeida or similar. Deserves to be a big success for all at Greenwich.

[ruperto]

I caught the matinee of this yesterday and I agree with a lot of what joem and Dave B have said. I thought this was great and deserves to do really well.

Like so many others, I missed out on tickets to see this first time around, so it’s great to be able to finally catch up with it now.

This revival has been put together with a lot of care. There’s some lovely writing in there, the three leads are all great - it really feels like McGann has nailed a very tricky part - and the set is amazing.

I’m really intrigued to know more about Butterworth’s additions/any changes to the original text.

Hopefully this will start selling a few more tickets, though it’s a big space to fill…

[pledge]

Agreed. Saw an earlier fringe production which didn't make much of a mark, but I found this production both gripping and subsequently haunting. Haven't stopped thinking about it, and if I don't entirely understand it, it's because it's about things which can't be understood. Having said that I'm not sure that new new prologue and epilogue particularly help - perhaps at once a bit too elliptical and a bit too explicit?? Dunno. (If anyone cares to risk a spoiler and offer an explanation I'd be interested to hear?) Meanwhile if I can will try to see this a second time.

[david]

Ok, with the positive reviews for this, it’s getting booked today to complete my London trip. I was looking at the Rylance play as well but this one sounds the better option. 

[Steve]

Oct 6, 2024 9:23:51 GMT pledge said:

If anyone cares to risk a spoiler and offer an explanation I'd be interested to hear?) Meanwhile if I can will try to see this a second time.

SPOILER: Click to show

In Billington's review, he understood the third woman to be just another girlfriend in rotation, seeing a play about a man who repeats himself.

The presence of the boy, established as McGann's character by the business with the stone, suggests that this is not just another woman but McGann's mother.

So while the play still has mysteries, it would appear he is looking for a girlfriend like his mother, and dismissing those potential girlfriends who don't possess her qualities.

The scenes in the play would appear to be him testing two women for these qualities.

What happened to his mother, I can't be sure.