The Real Thing - Old Vic

[Jon]

Just came back and as someone who has not seen any Tom Stoppard play before this, I did enjoy it. It's a load of tosh but it's well written, funny tosh. James McArdle as Henry is very good, he does have the best dialogue which is unsurprising since his character is a stand in for Stoppard himself, Bel Powley as Annie was good as well, I do think she seemed too young for the role even though she's the right age. I did like Susan Wokoma as Charlotte and she also gets some cracking dialogue as well.

I liked the scene changes and the use of pop music which convey the tone of the play. My nitpick is that there does seem to be too many actors in the play, you could easily have one actor playing Max, Billy and Brodie since they never interact for example.

All in all, I had a good time. I will check out The Invention of Love at Hampstead as my next Stoppard play.

[Dave B]

James McArdle is really really excellent in this - especially for a second preview. I imagine in a couple of weeks the Olivier panel will be taking note.

Other than that, many of you will be thrilled to learn there is an un-credited cameo by yet *another* hoover going on the stage carpet and around the cast. Opening Night really has gifted us with this gem, what a legacy!

I liked a lot of the bits about language and the preciseness of words but the pacing really varies after the interval and I'm not sure the relationships really land. Still an enjoyable evening and some particularly excellent lines.

[Dave B]

Aug 23, 2024 22:33:54 GMT Jon said:

I do think she seemed too young for the role even though she's the right age.

I thought this too, very much so but on thinking on it during the second act - is it down to her dress when we first meet her? It looks to be very deliberately dressed to appear young - contrast with her outtfits later on, just two or so years later in the play chronology.

Aug 23, 2024 22:33:54 GMT Jon said:

My nitpick is that there does seem to be too many actors in the play, you could easily have one actor playing Max, Billy and Brodie since they never interact for example.

Now that you mention it - yes 100%!

[Steve]

Saw the second preview tonight, and was completely bowled over by this romantic comedy.

I was struck not by the "clever wordplay," but by the heartfelt emotions.

I've seen other versions, but I had forgotten quite how good this is.

I particularly love this production for the chemistry of the performances, and for the most joyous (rather than didactic) use of a Brechtian device I've seen.

Some spoilers follow. . .

Before "Leopoldstadt," this was for me the Stoppard play most about feeling, as opposed to thinking, though there is lots of thinking about feelings lol.

This version isolates Henry, the lead character, for me, more than previous versions because everyone BUT he comes across as "The Real Thing."

By that I mean, all the characters feel like they are authentically expressing their "real" emotions all the time, except for James McArdle's Henry, who is a writer, and interested in being creative and witty. When he says the line "I feel superior," I felt it was more true of this Henry than other's I've seen. McArdle's Henry is puffed up: sardonic and playful and pleased with himself, and consequently, he's very funny, either when unrestrainedly letting his superiority go to town on those he considers inferior, or when getting his swollen balloon ego humiliatingly punctured by the authenticity of all the others. Even Charlotte, a composed person, who came across to me as immensely "superior" when Fenella Woolgar played her at the Old Vic a decade ago, comes across here as just plain authentic and truthful in Susan Wokoma's open and expressive performance.

McArdle is marvellous going on this journey from impervious and superior towards vulnerability and realness, and I found his journey immensely moving.

The most "real" performance on stage, the biggest catalyst of "realness," for me, was Bel Powley's Annie. I couldn't see any acting at all, just spontaneity. I knew she was good from her Royal Court plays (especially "Jumpy") and her Hampstead plays (especially "Raving") but I felt this was a league up again: flowing moment-to-moment passionate realness, butting heads with all the other characters, especially challenging McArdle's Henry's veneer of sophistication, resulting in moments of extreme comedy and moments of extreme emotion (Powley's tears were authentic and infectious, as experienced from PWC Stalls Row E).

There is alot of Brechtian playfulness from stage hands setting scenes, getting involved in scenes, dancing to Henry's music, reacting to the action. I didn't find any of it annoying, but rather joyful, magnifying the emotions of the scenes rather than cornering them or didactically reducing them.

Karise Yansen, as a younger character, is magnificent playing opposite McArdle, bringing so much depth from him; and as a potential romantic interest, Rilwan Abiola Owokoniran lights a sizzling spark up in his shared scenes with Powley, which flame Powley carries through marvellously into all her remaining scenes.

All in all, yes, this is just a many charactered romance, so if you don't like romance as a subject, maybe this is a no, but for me, this production is brilliant, for Stoppard's heart ruling his head, for McArdle continuing to be a compelling enigmatic comic and emotive stage presence and for Powley exploding with emotive "realness" from first to last.

5 stars from me.

[david]

I was in two minds whether to book for this on my London theatre week in October. From reading the very positive posts from folks, it looks like it is going on the “to watch list” now.

[nottobe]

Well I went to see this tonight as I managed the get a £10 ticket and had not really seen any Stoppard before and I really disliked it. Annoying and unlikeable characters, a plot I didn't care for, performances that were all a bit too much and miscast in my opinion and a play that just went on and on. Why should we give a stuff about these characters and their love affairs? I definitely don't need to see another Stoppard.

[Mark]

It was… fine?
Bit slow for me, and didn’t find the characters too interesting.

[shownut]

There tonight as well.

Evening seemed endless and quite dull. Not a Stoppard fan aside from LEOPOLDSTADT and this didn't move the needle in the slightest.

And what was with the dancing tech crew?

I guess it needed a gimmick to keep folks awake.

[theatreliker]

Also there last night...
I really enjoyed it. I read this play about 10 years ago but haven't seen it before. I also reread Jumpers recently. Stoppard's interest in high culture/low culture is theatrically played with here often in a self mocking way.
James McArdle great. Captures Henry's egocentricity but still likeable. Was he wearing a wig?
Saw Bel Powley in Lobby Hero in NY. Great actress. Very likeable.
I enjoyed the production including the dancing stage hands. For me it contributes to Henry being centre of his world, ie. the almost 500 Days of Summer sequence at the start of act 2.
Top production.

FYI. We stopped in the Waterloo Travelodge round the corner. That stretch of pavement has had scaffolding up for years now which has now been taken down ... only to be replaced by scaffolding where they're building the extension at the back of the theatre.

[mkb]

This is two-and-a-half hours of Stoppard riffing on fidelity and authenticity, yet managing to show not one iota of insight into the subject.

I'm reminded of the social media videos that do the rounds where characters' faces have been replaced by Trump or Musk or Putin or some such for comic effect. As with any Stoppard play, it's as if every face is Stoppard. Has Stoppard ever written a character with authentic lines? Here though, you can't help but admire his bravura in having two authors criticise another for not being able to write. Look in the mirror man!

Of course, writing unreal characters is fine if it serves a purpose; here there is none. Any "wit" and "jokes" in the dialogue are pseudo-intellectual, for which read unfunny.

The leads struggle to find any chemistry, unsurprising given the material, and the less said about the acting in some of the minor roles, the better. Powley does best; McArdle occasionally seems to be channeling James Dreyfus.

The scene changes, presumably meant to be fun, are pretentiously tiresome.

This was an evening of much (silent) sighing and eye rolling for me. The more I see of Stoppard's oeuvre, the more I realise he's a clear frontrunner for the nation's most overrated playwright.

One star.

Act 1: 19:32-20:25
Act 2: 20:45-22:04

[theatrefan77]

I also found Stoppard overrated in general but I quite enjoyed the Donmar production of The Real Thing about 20 years ago with Jennifer Ehle and Stephen Dillane. I will be seeing the Old Vic production this week. The reviews on this board are mixed at the moment, but they are still in previews.

[alessia]

Aug 24, 2024 23:00:29 GMT shownut said:

There tonight as well.

Evening seemed endless and quite dull. Not a Stoppard fan aside from LEOPOLDSTADT and this didn't move the needle in the slightest.

And what was with the dancing tech crew?

I guess it needed a gimmick to keep folks awake.

Sorry nothing to contribute but this made me cackle 🤣 

[coco]

I saw the second preview there. Being not a Stoppard fan, I would say this production is enjoyable to watch with the smooth scene change tricks, which blend in well with this play in a play format, but it can't save the play as Stoppard just can't write a proper love story.

I bought the ticket mainly for James McArdle, and he is good. The other main cast members are good, too, but I didn't see much room for them to play around, mainly because of the script.

[Being Alive]

Can't really understand at all where the one star reviews comes from but I guess we all like different things (just surprised having seen it tonight is all)

This is somewhere between a 3 and a 4 for me - with the main issue being I didn't think Bel Powley was particularly strong and that unbalanced the whole thing.

Thought McArdle carried the piece incredibly well in what is actually a really great role for a great actor (a joy to see him back on stage too) and particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma in the supporting cast.

Really liked the design choices - and for what it's worth I thought the stage crew integration was fun (and I nearly always hate stuff like that)

3 stars for me I think because I didn't vibe with Powley, but if you did it's 4 for me.
It's a good play (one of Stoppards better pieces I think) and it has something to say still which was surprising.

[Dave B]

Can we have a poll please BurlyBeaR TallPaul? Ta!

[Someone in a tree]

I normally like Stoppard but i found this one to be a bit dull and ploding

How is this normally cast? As generally the cast looked young for their roles. Also how is the play in the play normally stagged ?

I adored the blue of the set. The neon sign is very instagramable - be warned, if only i had brought my Kodak.


Undecided on this one, im looking forward to watching the thread develop and reviews come out.

[Jan]

Aug 26, 2024 21:48:59 GMT mkb said:

The more I see of Stoppard's oeuvre, the more I realise he's a clear frontrunner for the nation's most overrated playwright.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is a masterpiece and a modern classic. 

I am reminded of the interviewer who said to Joseph Heller "You haven't written anything as a good as Catch 22 again have you ?" and he replied "Who has ?". 

[claireyfairy1]

I saw this in New York with Ewan McGregor and Maggie Gyllenhaal about 10 years ago and thought it was ok. Didn't love it. That's generally my feeling about Stoppard plays, other than Rosencrantz which I really love. And I did also love Travesties at the Menier. Intrigued about this version of the Real Thing, I love James McCardle and he can usually carry me through anything (apart from Peter Gynt), but I wasn't sure about Bel Powley when I saw her on stage previously...seeing it on Saturday so will see.

[bordeaux]

Aug 24, 2024 22:44:03 GMT nottobe said:

Well I went to see this tonight as I managed the get a £10 ticket and had not really seen any Stoppard before and I really disliked it. Annoying and unlikeable characters, a plot I didn't care for, performances that were all a bit too much and miscast in my opinion and a play that just went on and on. Why should we give a stuff about these characters and their love affairs? I definitely don't need to see another Stoppard.

Seems odd to me to dismiss a writer on the basis of one play, especially since plays can vary so much from production to production.  Stoppard has written great plays in pretty much every decade since the 1960s (exception, the 2010s).  Everyone reading this will have writers or film-makers or musicians whose work they initially didn't get or like and then realised after more exposure that they enjoyed.

[bordeaux]

Aug 28, 2024 8:04:36 GMT Someone in a tree said:

I normally like Stoppard but i found this one to be a bit dull and ploding

How is this normally cast? As generally the cast looked young for their roles. Also how is the play in the play normally stagged ?

I adored the blue of the set. The neon sign is very instagramable - be warned, if only i had brought my Kodak.


Undecided on this one, im looking forward to watching the thread develop and reviews come out.

Henry is 40-ish, Charlotte 35-ish and Annie 30-ish.  First UK cast was Roger Rees and Felicity Kendall as Henry and Annie.  First Broadway was Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close, 1983.  Then in 1999 Stephen Dillane and Jennifer Ehle.  I think the fact that Charlotte, Henry's wife, has a 17 year old daughter and she is mid-30s (and Henry 40ish) is odd.  These days middle-class women in their mid 30s are more likely to have babies than teenagers.  

[Jon]

James McArdle is slightly younger than the age Henry is at 36 but not by much. I do think that people generally just look younger these days is why the casting for this production looks younger. Toby Stephens was 41 when he played Henry in the 2010 production so right age as well.

[mkb]

Aug 28, 2024 9:58:58 GMT Jan said:

Aug 26, 2024 21:48:59 GMT mkb said:

The more I see of Stoppard's oeuvre, the more I realise he's a clear frontrunner for the nation's most overrated playwright.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is a masterpiece and a modern classic. 

I am reminded of the interviewer who said to Joseph Heller "You haven't written anything as a good as Catch 22 again have you ?" and he replied "Who has ?". 

I wonder if Heller was simply making a joke in response to an impudent question rather than being arrogant, particularly as his book received a mauling from some critics.

Opinions on art are far from absolute, and to assert something a masterpiece that has attracted a range of reviews seems like wishful thinking.

I know R&GAD only from the 2011 and 2017 London productions. Based on those, I am unpersuaded as to the merits of your opinion. Maybe I need to see a better version. Far too much trying to be clever to little dramatic effect. The discussion of probability theory alone at the start had me cringing as it was pitched at the level of a maths teacher talking to twelve-year olds.

[Jan]

Aug 28, 2024 13:53:43 GMT mkb said:

Aug 28, 2024 9:58:58 GMT Jan said:

Opinions on art are far from absolute, and to assert something a masterpiece that has attracted a range of reviews seems like wishful thinking.

It is very widely accepted now as a masterpiece and even at the time won the Tony award for best play. The play hasn't really attracted a range of reviews at all - that in itself is wishful thinking - and anyway if that disqualifies something from being a masterpiece then there aren't any and the word is redundant.  

[nottobe]

Aug 28, 2024 13:16:34 GMT bordeaux said:

Aug 24, 2024 22:44:03 GMT nottobe said:

Seems odd to me to dismiss a writer on the basis of one play, especially since plays can vary so much from production to production.  Stoppard has written great plays in pretty much every decade since the 1960s (exception, the 2010s).  Everyone reading this will have writers or film-makers or musicians whose work they initially didn't get or like and then realised after more exposure that they enjoyed.

Well I saw the NT live of R and G are Dead and found it a little challenging. Stoppard is known to be a very challenging writer and cater to a specific audience who know about 'intellectual' themes. If this is meant to be one of his more accessible plays and I found it too trying and clever for itself then why would I bother with his more hard work plays?   

[thistimetomorrow]

I liked James McArdle a lot in this. Can he sing? He'd act the hell out of Franklin Shepherd I reckon.

Act 1 was pretty enjoyable, but I got bored in Act 2 and didn't really get it tbh. Nice to see Oliver Johnstone in the cast too, really liked his Henry V at the Globe a few years ago.