Bluets - Royal Court

[aloysius]

Caught the first preview of Bluets last night. I was really impressed, its one of Katie Mitchell's 'live cinema' productions with the three actors splitting a monologue between them, each filmed by multiple cameras with the projection flickering between them at fast pace. I've not seen a Mitchell production before and was blown away by the technical audacity and complexity. The plot is very much secondary to the spectacle, which bombards you so rapidly that it's hard to take it all in, even though the three performers barely move out of range of their main camera. I think Ben Wishaw last worked with her in a controversial production of The Seagull at the National in 2006. I imagine this will be much better reviewed. I found it mind-blowing theatre.

[Afriley]

Caught this last night. Very impressive and despite the complexity went off without major glitches (we were warned there might be show stops but none occurred).

The three actors are stellar and almost seamless - I expect they will be after previews. The content itself hit me right in my current mood so that’s a bonus. A piece I’ll be thinking about for a long while yet.

[clarefh]

This is great to hear - I’ve been really looking forwards to this one ( and to be back enjoying stuff at the RC!)

[aspieandy]

May 18, 2024 9:03:18 GMT aloysius said:

The plot is very much secondary to the spectacle..

Things you never expected to see written about a RC production.

Onwards: if you have seen Katie Mitchel’s Little Scratch, this is that concept, with a - currently - weaker script and poorer performances. Maybe the idea is to add levels to the impressive Little Scratch script and production.

I thought the plot primary, it's just tricky to access - presentation, perception, obsession: dunno. Certainly tech complications but let's not allow that to mask a production, imo, *not entirely ready* for public performance. Video is following script so changes must be a nightmare.

Currently on book, reading the script from musical stands which may conveniently give the vibe of being part of the production.

One stand out with Little Scratch was that distinct aspects of a single personality really shone. Currently, that is lost here under the weight of tech.

Hopefully more accessible in a week or so.

Advertised at 80-mins. First preview was 70-mins (presumably as they work through this): came out into Sloane Sq and it was light!

[aloysius]

May 18, 2024 10:04:45 GMT aspieandy said:

Video is following script so changes must be a nightmare.

It was interesting to see the scenes numbered in the bottom corner of the screen. It reached 600+ but occasionally jumped forward by three or five which I assumed were either last-minute excisions or actors forgetting certain elements of the script. The fact it looked so seamless was very impressive - the concentration that must require from those behind the scenes is awe-inspiring.

I was engaged by the plot - the shifting perspectives, the melancholia, the journey in and out of despair - but it's only thinking back after the production that I could really appreciate the prose poem. The production is so frenetic there's not much time for reflection while you're watching what's on stage.

[drmaplewood]

I really liked this last night, found it strangely hypnotic. My friend hated it though so this may divide people.

[clarefh]

I have a ticket for this on the noticeboard if anyone is interested (8 June evening). Managed to book for when I’m away somehow!

[Being Alive]

What a pretentious load of twaddle this was.

Couldn't really fault the cast, but theres a really good monologue in there, inexplicably split between 3 people currently and the most bizarre design and staging choices I've seen for ages.

And don't get me STARTED on the amount of stage management running around with stupid bloody props and bits of staging.

[parsley1]

This is practically sold out

The last 2 upstairs shows were also sold out

New times for the venue bode well

[coffeeee]

I'm afraid I did not enjoy this and I'm a fan of everyone involved. The way the script was divided - a line each - made it feel like a really ponderous version of that game 'consequences'. I was up for a meditative, poetic exploration of the meditative, poetic book but the editing of the script and also then the treatment, which involved them sharing every other line and spinning around on the spot, constantly changing costume for no reason, felt simultaneously jarring and achingly slow. I've seen the foley and film work done much more interestingly and seamlessly by Mitchell at the National and Young Vic so I don't know what happened here. The whole thing felt Katie Mitchell by numbers and failed to really get into the ideas of the book or the emotions. BUT it was lovely seeing the theatre so busy.

[Steve]

Saw this tonight and I agree with the poster above who said this is hypnotic and fascinating.

It is the reading of selected extracts of a prose poem about and by a person who worships the colour, blue, so if that sounds awful, then nothing is going to make you like this piece.

But Katie Mitchell massively complicates, and simultaneously simplifies the prose poem, by the images she presents on a big screen above the actors, and by having us watch the actors construct those images, which arguably changes the meaning of the piece again.

I think it's really dreamy and it reminds me of being very young and turning on Channel 4 late at night, watching some weird thing you wouldn't see on any other channel, and wondering if the meaning of life was hidden in there somewhere lol.

Some spoilers follow. . .

Its also really intriguing, because from the very start it's telling three stories at once:-

(1) There's the prose poem by Maggie Nelson, edited by Margaret Perry, about a narrator obsessed with the colour, blue, through which prism she interprets her whole life;

(2) There's the story Katie Mitchell is telling on a big screen behind the actors, about one person, played by 3 actors, who always seems to be either brooding or in transit, often brooding WHILE in transit lol; and

(3) There's the story being told by the construction of the above film, which completely twists the meaning of the film.

To elaborate on how this worked for me, consider the following:-

(a) I think the main thing we take from the prose poem is that blue is essentially meaningless, just a fetish of the narrator that stands in for everything else she cares about, especially her lover and her injured friend;

(b) Meanwhile, the film generalises the poem, and makes it mundane.

The film generalises the story by taking a story written by a white woman, and depicting it as narrated by both a black woman and a white man, rendering both race and gender irrelevant, and the story universal. The narrator is never seen narrating, but rather thinking, as the pictured person in the film is always voiced by the other two narrators, as if thoughts in the pictured persons' head.

The film makes the narrative mundane because no matter how passionate, specific or sad the narrative, by and large, all we see on the screen is the lonely narrator, either journeying to, or fixed in contemplation of, their 'blue' fetish object, travelling by tube, train or by foot, stopping to contemplate the object and then travelling again.

The vision of Maggie Nelson is of passion and loneliness seen through the prism of blue. But the vision of Katie Mitchell is that objectively, it's all just mundane travelling and stopping to think.

(c) However, the actors constructing the film, Katie Mitchell shows us, are in fact not journeying anywhere. They are in fact walking on the spot in front of a projection of moving terrain. They are statically positioned to look like they are riding vehicles when in fact they don't move.

The implication of all these storytelling layers is profound: (i) not only are our pursuits illusory (blue is just something our brains construct out of light waves, even if we value it highly); (ii) not only are our lives mere journeys towards and in contemplation of such illusions, but (iii) even the journeys we take may be fictions we create for ourselves.

In other words, we really are all just living in The Matrix, or as The Verve's Richard Ashcroft would put it, "all the love we have is in our minds."

Anyway, everyone will see something different, I'm sure, but those are the thoughts I was hypnotised into having while I watched this fascinating production, as rich as any of the old weird stuff they used to put on Channel 4 late at night lol.

I also thought that Whishaw, D'Arcy and Meikle do a seamless job of blending into one contemplative lonely person.

For its sheer strange stimulating originality, I'd give this 4 stars.

[coffeeee]

May 23, 2024 22:49:59 GMT Steve said:

Saw this tonight and I agree with the poster above who said this is hypnotic and fascinating.

It is the reading of selected extracts of a prose poem about and by a person who worships the colour, blue, so if that sounds awful, then nothing is going to make you like this piece.

But Katie Mitchell massively complicates, and simultaneously simplifies the prose poem, by the images she presents on a big screen above the actors, and by having us watch the actors construct those images, which arguably changes the meaning of the piece again.

I think it's really dreamy and it reminds me of being very young and turning on Channel 4 late at night, watching some weird thing you wouldn't see on any other channel, and wondering if the meaning of life was hidden in there somewhere lol.

Some spoilers follow. . .

Its also really intriguing, because from the very start it's telling three stories at once:-

(1) There's the prose poem by Maggie Nelson, edited by Margaret Perry, about a narrator obsessed with the colour, blue, through which prism she interprets her whole life;

(2) There's the story Katie Mitchell is telling on a big screen behind the actors, about one person, played by 3 actors, who always seems to be either brooding or in transit, often brooding WHILE in transit lol; and

(3) There's the story being told by the construction of the above film, which completely twists the meaning of the film.

To elaborate on how this worked for me, consider the following:-

(a) I think the main thing we take from the prose poem is that blue is essentially meaningless, just a fetish of the narrator that stands in for everything else she cares about, especially her lover and her injured friend;

(b) Meanwhile, the film generalises the poem, and makes it mundane.

The film generalises the story by taking a story written by a white woman, and depicting it as narrated by both a black woman and a white man, rendering both race and gender irrelevant, and the story universal. The narrator is never seen narrating, but rather thinking, as the pictured person in the film is always voiced by the other two narrators, as if thoughts in the pictured persons' head.

The film makes the narrative mundane because no matter how passionate, specific or sad the narrative, by and large, all we see on the screen is the lonely narrator, either journeying to, or fixed in contemplation of, their 'blue' fetish object, travelling by tube, train or by foot, stopping to contemplate the object and then travelling again.

The vision of Maggie Nelson is of passion and loneliness seen through the prism of blue. But the vision of Katie Mitchell is that objectively, it's all just mundane travelling and stopping to think.

(c) However, the actors constructing the film, Katie Mitchell shows us, are in fact not journeying anywhere. They are in fact walking on the spot in front of a projection of moving terrain. They are statically positioned to look like they are riding vehicles when in fact they don't move.

The implication of all these storytelling layers is profound: (i) not only are our pursuits illusory (blue is just something our brains construct out of light waves, even if we value it highly); (ii) not only are our lives mere journeys towards and in contemplation of such illusions, but (iii) even the journeys we take may be fictions we create for ourselves.

In other words, we really are all just living in The Matrix, or as The Verve's Richard Ashcroft would put it, "all the love we have is in our minds."

Anyway, everyone will see something different, I'm sure, but those are the thoughts I was hypnotised into having while I watched this fascinating production, as rich as any of the old weird stuff they used to put on Channel 4 late at night lol.

I also thought that Whishaw, D'Arcy and Meikle do a seamless job of blending into one contemplative lonely person.

For its sheer strange stimulating originality, I'd give this 4 stars.

That's a really interesting interpretation - and as you say everyone will have their own. I think perhaps what you found fundamentally interesting, I found a bit enervating. To remove meaning from an investigation into the meaning of something and to deliberately blanche it of emotion (or colour) to point out the essential pointlessness of everything felt ultimately, well, pointless and a bit easy. Creating drama with emotion *and* meaning is a lot harder but different strokes and nice to see the Court creating work which provokes discussion and gets the audiences in.

[n1david]

Can't believe I was at the same performance as the mighty Steve

My views on this production are really a bit coloured by my seats in the front row - I know front row is often a compromise in terms of view, which is why it's cheaper, but in this instance some of the front row seats should really have been sold as restricted view - if you are stuck behind one of the cameras, as I was, you have virtually no view of the actors and a very compromised view of the big screen (which is a long way up so prepare for neck ache/backache). It's one of the few theatrical productions I'd rather have seen from the circle.

That aside, I did find the text reading quite compelling and from what I could see the conceit of three actors playing the same character worked well. As others have said, the logistics of this show are astonishing and I can't imagine the rehearsal process. (there is an article about it in the programme, which in this case is I think worth buying to understand a bit more about the Live Cinema process if one is unfamiliar with it)

So, for me, an interesting but ultimately disappointing night at the theatre.

[Steve]

May 24, 2024 8:42:56 GMT n1david said:

Can't believe I was at the same performance as the mighty Steve
in this instance some of the front row seats should really have been sold as restricted view - if you are stuck behind one of the cameras, as I was, you have virtually no view of the actors and a very compromised view of the big screen

This just isn't right. I thought those front row seats looked completely restricted, and if they weren't advertised as such, you should complain.

[n1david]

Awaiting a response from RCT box office. Front row tickets were sold at second price, £46.

[crowblack]

Regarding the old, much artier Ch4 comments above, this sounds very like Derek Jarman's Blue. I have to say my 'ooh, Ben Whishaw, but I can't get to/afford London' FOMO is significantly lessened when it's this type of production (especially given how glum the cast look in the production photos)

[parsley1]

May 24, 2024 21:09:24 GMT Steve said:

May 24, 2024 8:42:56 GMT n1david said:

Can't believe I was at the same performance as the mighty Steve
in this instance some of the front row seats should really have been sold as restricted view - if you are stuck behind one of the cameras, as I was, you have virtually no view of the actors and a very compromised view of the big screen

This just isn't right. I thought those front row seats looked completely restricted, and if they weren't advertised as such, you should complain.

I have a front row seat as I always book these

Should I raise an issue with theatre

Thanks for both flagging

[Steve]

May 25, 2024 0:07:39 GMT parsley1 said:

May 24, 2024 21:09:24 GMT Steve said:

This just isn't right. I thought those front row seats looked completely restricted, and if they weren't advertised as such, you should complain.

I have a front row seat as I always book these

Should I raise an issue with theatre

Thanks for both flagging

Yes. The first couple of rows look utterly restricted to me.

Obviously its difficult to reseat people when a production is heavily sold, but there is no way to appreciate this production from those front row seats, in my opinion.

If they don't reseat you in advance, show up early and ask to be reseated on the day. That way, if punters from Rows D and further back don't show up, they'll probably just allow you to sit there instead. Good luck.

[harry]

I think where you sit will greatly influence quite how much you enjoy this. Sitting in the dress circle the “finished article” i.e. the film is at eye level, so you’re able to tune into the the film and listen to the words without distraction, but can also drop your eyes to the actors themselves to marvel in the very organised chaos when you want to. I found it hypnotic and far more entertaining than I’d thought I might. I found some of the text really beautiful, and just when I thought it might be outstaying its welcome it finished. I was also so impressed at the actors keeping up with everything going on and their generosity and support of one another rather than ever trying to make it about themself. About halfway through I really started to feel it was almost one voice rather than 3 separate actors.

But I imagine sitting in the stalls and trying to view the screen with the actors directly in front would make it all incredibly distancing and distracting, stage managers rushing in and out, moving TVs, swapping boards of props etc.

It was definitely a 4-star show for me - not necessarily how I would like all my theatre to be but a really fascinating experiment, and an interesting start to the David Byrne era.

[parsley1]

Amazing box office moved me further back into stalls

Big shout out and thanks to them

[NeilVHughes]

God this is pretentious twaddle, a 15 minute verse stretched to 80 minutes, the front of the stage is basically 3 cameras and 3 tables which depending on position will always obscure at least one of the actors if in the stalls.

Two saving graces, only 80 minutes and the overlay of the actors on the background screens was impressive.


With the introduction of the friend, my take was that heart break, just get over it, couldn’t even see why they needed 3 actors as it did not come over as different facets of the same person, only 3 people taking it in turns to speak.

Hopefully somebody will have a different take which flew over my head.

[adamkinsey]

Another vote for 'twaddle' here (and that's being kind). This is my current leader in 'Worst Play of the Year' but there's still 7 months to go...

[ohughes01]

Ticket posted on the noticeboard.

[MrBunbury]

I actually really loved it, both the book and the production are up my street and resonated. I am actually writing a review for work (with a medical angle as that is my line of work). But I can understand how it may not be something for everyone.

[Dave B]

May 18, 2024 10:04:45 GMT aspieandy said:

Currently on book, reading the script from musical stands which may conveniently give the vibe of being part of the production.

Still happening tonight!

Have to say I'm in the twaddle camp and I had loved Katie Mitchell’s Little Scratch so very disappointed too.