Bluets - Royal Court

[foxa]

Somewhat to my surprise, I am in the NOT twaddle camp. I was afraid I was dragging my husband to a dire afternoon yesterday, but I (and to a slightly lesser degree he) found it engrossing. The intensity of the script coupled with the cool forensic demands of the performance were highly effective and never boring. The script on its own might have been self-indulgent, but the precision of the actors, who could jump from contemplating their mortality in one section to minutely adjusting a prop the next, cut through that. Having three very different actors voicing the thoughts meant I didn't get locked into 'Do I like or sympathise with this character' but instead, focused on what lines or phrases resonated with me. I don't know Emma D'Arcy's work, but having someone with such an extraordinary face for the close screen work was a gift. And I loved watching the moments when the actors worked together, intertwined, adjusting microphones, rushing to a new spot. At times it was more art installation than drama, but then I like art installations.

I wonder if our experience was better than some because of our seats - we were first row of the circle, which I think was perfect for this production - The screens and performers equally visible. Anyway, a confident 4* from me.

BTW, the script mentions a Joan Hobart (I think) film which an artist had cut down just to the moments when she is on screen. I've been trying to find out more about it - does anyone here know?

[aspieandy]

Jun 2, 2024 11:20:55 GMT foxa said:

I wonder if our experience was better than some because of our seats - we were first row of the circle, which I think was perfect for this production - The screens and performers equally visible. Anyway, a confident 4* from me.

Yes, I would imagine it was an entirely different experience from the stalls as seen at first preview.

Fwiw, I am quite interested in revisiting this - in the circle, this time - and revisiting the Donmar's Cherry Orchard from the stalls.

[zed]

Saw this over the weekend and count me among those that loved it.

That said, I can fully sympathize with those who weren't fond of it -- it's definitely unusual, sometimes hard to follow, and sure, I can see people thinking it's basically a pretentious poetry reading. But for me, it worked really well as I tried not to overthink it and just let the words and the visuals wash over me. The storytelling and acting is unlike anything I've ever seen before -- so inventive, and all three actors were wonderful.

One last thing -- I endorse what some other said on the importance of seating for this one. Being able to clearly see the actors' faces and especially the screen is likely a prerequisite for enjoying the performance. Unlike with a restricted view seat in a conventional play, the actors here are barely moving -- so if you don't have a good view of them/the screen, that will be your experience for the whole performance which would be frustrating.

[n1david]

Glad others have enjoyed this. After ten days the Royal Court has not yet given me a substantive response to my complaint about full-price tickets for the front row of the stalls.

[colelarson]

I saw this on Saturday and did enjoy it! It did feel a bit like a student showcase to start with but I got into it. I was in the Stalls to the side and could see the actors and screens side on but imagine the Circle would be better to enjoy all the elements of the screen and stage work front on.

The piece looks at love, loss and coming to terms with these feelings and how the colour Blue intercepts with the characters thoughts and desires. I found it to be an intellectual yet beautiful and inspiring exploration of every aspect of the colour Blue.

I liked how the actors all worked with each other and kudos to the stage hands as well who seamlessly moved props back and forth.

I have not read the book the play is based on and I am keen to look at it next; as who knew there were so many associations with the colour Blue!

[claireyfairy1]

I really enjoyed this at the weekend. It takes a minute to settle in with it as it's easy to be distracted by the screens/props/stage hands, but once I did I really found it very powerful.

I agree that the seating makes a huge difference. I was on the front row of the circle and I imagine there are seats in the house that make it a much less pleasurable experience where the style has a more negative than positive effect. Thanks to n1david for the heads up on the stalls front row as I was able to get my seat changed as a result. I am sure I had a much better experience because of it. (Really hope the Royal Court respond in a more substantial way.)

[strawberrypie]

Me and two friends were in the last row of the Circle last night, which had a perfect view of everything going on. Two of us loved it, one of my friends didn't - so very much divided opinion. I think "hypnotic" probably nails it for me, as I couldn't believe how quickly the 70 minutes passed - the ebb and flow of the poem, the choreography of the three actors (and the stage hands handling the props), the music and lighting and video backgrounds - it all worked for me and I was captivated by the precision and technical aspects of the performance just as much as by the melancholy of the text.

There was a post-show talk last night with Margaret Perry, Katie Mitchell and David Byrne (RC Artistic Director) - some fascinating insights into the writing and production/rehearsal elements of the show. Margaret actually added elements of Maggie Nelson's other work 'Something Bright, Then Holes' to drive the narrative forward and Katie spoke about the non-traditional rehearsal approach, in that the tech and cinema elements were there from the very beginning and they essentially rehearsed 30-40 second snippets at a time to get it right.

I agree with what someone above said, I don't want all my theatre like this, but this was unique and certainly captivating for me. 4*.

[mjh]

Could anyone advise on what the current finish time is for Bluets at the moment please?

[kallyloo]

It’s only 80 mins long, no interval and starts 6.30.

[harry]

Jun 8, 2024 6:58:37 GMT kallyloo said:

It’s only 80 mins long, no interval and starts 6.30.

6:30 start is Saturday evenings only. The new RC regime seem to be trialling a thing where Saturday performances are all earlier. Normally it’s 7:30.

Also it’s more like 70min than 80 even though they say 80min everywhere (website and signage/ushers at the theatre)

Splitting the difference and assuming it doesn’t actually go up bang on time I’d say if you are going on a weekday evening you can expect to be out by 8:45, or 7:45 on a Saturday (3:45 on a Thu matinee or 2:45 on a Sat matinee).

[juicy_but_terribly_drab]

Yeah I just saw it and the ushers were saying it was 70 minutes but it started probably 10 or 15 minutes late so we got out at about 10 to 3. Odd to have an early start for such a short show but it's nice in a way since you get home early too. Unfortunately I'm seeing something else this evening so having to kill time before then rather than waste 2 hours travelling home and back into central London again.

As for the show, not totally sure what to make of it completely but it certainly was hypnotic as I think I saw someone describe it earlier in the thread. Also just very impressive to see it all pulled off. It reminded me of seeing music made with a looping machine but for a visual medium instead of an auditory one (although the soundscape was also very integral to the atmosphere of the show). Just really fascinating to simultaneously see the messy craft behind making these seamless images. Of the cast I came away most impressed with Emma D'Arcy I must say, they had a very captivating face and line readings.

[n1david]

Royal Court has now refunded me the cost of one of my two tickets. I think that's an acceptable outcome but it's annoying that it took two emails to get it.

[patiently_waiting]

May 18, 2024 10:49:52 GMT aloysius said:

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.

I agree with all of this so thank you for helping to organise my own thoughts. I found it impressive and so exciting to watch. I enjoyed all the staging, camera work and the use of the props and it all worked together so well. I too couldn't properly appreciate the poem but thought some lines and the delivery wonderful.

[avfan]

Cast were great, but the script is meandering and Katie Mitchell is doing what she does best here, getting in the way of the actors and showing us all what an interesting director she is at the behest of good story telling and giving the actors space to develop their characters. 2 stars from me.

[alessia]

I read on the programme that this is supposed to be about a woman experiencing a lot of pain after a breakup...I did not get any of that feeling coming through from the script. This is definitely more like performance art/ poetry reading than a play, and all about the obsession of this woman with blue, with some musings about her ex in the background. I couldn't get moved because it was sold out last night so I was front row, the view wasn't as bad as I expected after reading the comments here. It was interesting to see the actors movements and I could still see the screen though I did have a camera on my line of sight. Overall it was an experience, but not something that made me feel anything- not exactly forgettable, but left me completely cold, a bit like the colour blue I suppose. the length is spot on for what this is.

[max]

As a play/performance text this was a failure for me. All my energy/interest was taken up with 'how they're doing the next bit'; marveling at how low tech the basic infrastructure is (acting in front of a big telly) yet how precise it must be to make that work; and trying not to think about The Two Ronnies.

There were a few points where the method of making chimed with the script, and it worked. e.g. a section on theories of how we perceive colour, and how that's been viewed across scientific and philosophical history. Then a section about someone who edited an old film to feature only their preferred character, then tinged it all blue. The laid-bare making, right in front of us, feels a bit scientific, and certainly shows a studied editing to make a story about perception and the wilful editing of our own life narratives. I can think of artistic works that go a lot deeper on that subject in more challenging ways though.

It made me want to get the original 'Bluets' book - interested in whether Katie Mitchell has found a theatrical way of expressing glancing approaches to colour and personal narrative that actually is reflective of the book. Otherwise, I sat there thinking: this could be almost any text that this live/lockdown film making technique is being applied to. I wonder if the original writer is annoyed by that.

All the cast are good, but wow, Ben Whishaw can hit his mark! Perfectly framing his shots, making stances that put him in a tiny kitchen or a vast space just by projecting presence and inner life. I saw some great films last year, but 'Passages' was one of the weakest, I can see now that Whishaw could act with excellence in absolutely anything - saves him embarrassment, but sometimes it's better if an actor can't dignify a weak script, and looks bad in stuff that's bad.

I'd love to know what audiences just seeing the 'completed film' make of the 'Bluets' story - without the distraction of seeing it being made, which is the dominant experience of going to the Royal Court. Once it had made me thinking about The Two Ronnies various train sketches I couldn't stop (was that early green screen/chromakey, or projected in studio?). There are laughs in 'Bluets', some from characters, most in watching the actors spin plates to make the effects. So I did wonder if the piece would subvert itself by going intentionally out of sync; like The Two Ronnies sketches where a conversation would slip out of sync by one sentence (e.g Mastermind TV quiz).

'The Two Ronnies' more formally daring (in the writing at least) than 'Bluets' at the Royal Court. Who knew.

[jm25]

Saw this last night and wasn't entirely sure what to make of it, in part because I didn't quite know where I was supposed to be looking! I was most drawn to the actors, though the constant cutting between them didn't make that easy. But by focusing so much on the actors I felt I was missing out on the screen work. So I made a conscious effort to watch the screen too - but even that wasn't easy as the actor on screen never seemed to be the one talking! Last night's show was captioned and while on the one hand it was helpful having another screen to follow the text, it was yet another screen vying for my attention!

I can't say I felt emotionally attached to it at all but I could appreciate how impressive this was on a technical level and my attention never strayed. I think it ran for about 65 minutes (just shy of the advertised 70) and for me the compact run time worked in its favour. A show like this could overstay its welcome but this felt perfect.

Emma D'Arcy was the standout for me. An understated performance but totally commanded my attention from the outset. There was a big crowd waiting outside for them too - no doubt the timing of House of the Dragon has worked out perfectly for this run!

[triana]

I love Maggie Nelson's book, but when I heard they were turning it into a play, I wondered how on Earth would something like Bluets ever work on stage. This live cinema thing was not what I was expecting, but I ended up loving the play. It helped that I knew beforehand that Katie Mitchell is definitely not known for a traditional approach to theatre.

The actors were awesome, and technically it was all very impressive. I can't imagine how many hours of rehearsal went into the extremely intricate "choreography". Pulling this play off must be very demanding for both stage/technical crew and actors, and it must require a lot of concentration. It was very fascinating for me to see the difference in what the actors were doing on stage and how it looked on the screens.

My biggest gripe was that you kind of have to constantly move your head and look at different things to be able to see even half of the stuff that is going on. If the play was any longer, it would kill my neck. I also wished that one actor had more consecutive lines instead of the constatat switching between them.

Like someone else said, I wouldn't want all theatre to be like this, but I found this one play to be absolutely fascinating. Super happy I had the chance to see it.