The Real Thing - Old Vic

[nash16]

Sept 6, 2024 14:48:13 GMT Being Alive said:

Well that's....bobbins.

It’s such an oddly worded email…

[Javert]

Saw it last night. My primary gripe is that the writing tries to be clever for its own sake, and ironically, obscures the actual payoff of intellectualising some fairly banal ideas. For a play ostensibly about human interaction, you're not led to really *care* about any of it; witty insights and inventive dialogue can only do so much. And even if this is intentionally emblematic of the central theme -- the discord between performativity and "the real thing" -- the experience becomes more of an academic exercise than an enjoyable work of theatre.

[greenandbrownandblue]

I was there last night too. Really enjoyed it, though I found the first act stronger than the second.

Agree that most of the characters aren't very likeable - though McArdle does a terrific job in making you want to like what is a fairly self-centered, arrogant and at times odious man.

It's very funny - some brilliant lines in there, especially in the opening scene. Also it's unbelievably prescient. There's a scene towards the end that I couldn't believe was written in 1982, given how relevant it was to what's happening right now. 

I thought the use of stage crew (or in fact understudies playing the stage crew), in a Brechtian device, worked well given the play's underlying theme.

Now give us a revival of Arcadia, please!

[rumbledoll]

Sept 8, 2024 10:21:53 GMT Javert said:

Saw it last night. My primary gripe is that the writing tries to be clever for its own sake, and ironically, obscures the actual payoff of intellectualising some fairly banal ideas. For a play ostensibly about human interaction, you're not led to really *care* about any of it; witty insights and inventive dialogue can only do so much. And even if this is intentionally emblematic of the central theme -- the discord between performativity and "the real thing" -- the experience becomes more of an academic exercise than an enjoyable work of theatre.

I haven't seen the play staged, I've only read it but this exactly what I thought of it! 
James McArdle is always a draw, a fantastic actor, but I''ll probably give this a miss since it doesn't fit in terms of dates into the upcoming trip anyway.. 

[orchidman]

It doesn't hold up, the first half is essentially a comedy and the second half tries to be a drama after we have been given no reason to care about the two leading characters and one very good reason not to.

Casting is absolutely horrendous, particularly the female leads, and that's before the lack of chemistry. Come back Dimitri Weismann, all is forgiven.

[theatreguymike]

Director Max Webster clearly wants us to know we are watching a play. The set emphasises the acting space with an illuminated surround at both ground and ceiling level, and at one point the very visible stagehands even join the main character in a dance!

The author of the play, Tom Stoppard, has written a play about a playwright, himself, and about his own affair with an actress. The first scene within that play is a scene from the playwright’s play about an infidelity. And so we have three levels of narrative about affairs to consider! The ‘Russian Doll’ situation is never far from our thoughts and neither is the theatrical artifice of the whole show. And a show it is – a show-off of Stoppard’s wit at expressing himself and exercising his thoughts on love, (in)fidelity, and…er…himself. Some shy away from his spectacular self-exposure and, I must admit, this frequent promotion of his intellect is often a problem I have with some of Stoppard’s other plays. But not here. Oh no, at this one I smile at the conceit of it all, I laugh at the jokes so astute, surprising and characterful. And I care about those people on stage going through their carefully contrived performance, baring their souls, to achieve before our very eyes, the real thing.

That first scene from the-play-within-a-play is just slightly actorly, catches our attention but we know we are watching from a distance. We are then gradually drawn in to the life of the playwright (maybe Stoppard’s, but essentially that of the in-play author Henry). His life is falling apart with pangs of love, and who knows when and where it will settle? His affair is the catalyst but, as we progress through the complex relationship tangle, we can see real feelings develop. There are tears, but by the end those central players have achieved a real bond.

James McArdle commands the stage as Henry, meeting all the demands of Stoppard’s wordy script with a satisfying flourish. Henry’s second partner Annie is played by Bel Powley, and I was expecting a problem here. She has proved herself adept at teenage roles on tv, but here she matures as we watch, giving a robust counterbalance to McArdle’s Henry. There are also Susan Wokoma and Oliver Johnstone as Max and Charlotte, the ex-partners of Henry and Annie, balancing the foursome while still hinting at reasons for rejection. I also want to mention Rilwan Abiola Owokoniran who pops up briefly to charm Annie (and us) with his seductive smile.

At our matinee performance, I wondered if the audience was asleep, so meagre was any sense of a response. After the interval they awoke! It’s a theatre classic. Our attention brings its reward. And rewarding it certainly was.

[tmesis]

I too was at the matinee for this and really enjoyed it. Didn’t notice any lack of response pre interval. All around me seemed very engaged.
It’s definitely one of his more accessible plays.

[sweets7]

Saw this at the weekend. Really enjoyed it and thought James McArdle was really terrific.

[singingbird]

I saw this last night with high hopes but was sadly disappointed.

I'd seen a couple of Stoppard plays down the years but it was seeing Travesties in the WE about seven years ago which just blew me away. It was one of the most stimulating nights I've ever spent in a theatre, like watching a circus, but the acrobatics were with words and ideas. I'd been on the look out for another major Stoppard revival for a while, so I snapped this up, particularly as I love plays about writers/actors and those that have plays within plays.

But I really didn't think this worked. I don't know if it was the script, or the production, but it just felt really heavy handed to me. It never took off. I was expecting a much smarter script, with more layers and more playfulness. I never believed that any of the characters were in love - there was no yearning, no poetry, no romance, no feeling. It felt like the academic approach sucked all the love out of it, meaning the script was working against the subject matter. It didn't even feel like a succesful academic examination of love/attraction/relationships, because it just didn't seem to have any great insight to share.

I enjoyed the cricket bat section, and there were some great one liners, but it just never amounted to anything. I'm still hoping to find another Stoppard to equal Travesties.

[jake]

Oct 16, 2024 11:45:50 GMT singingbird said:

I saw this last night with high hopes but was sadly disappointed.

I'd seen a couple of Stoppard plays down the years but it was seeing Travesties in the WE about seven years ago which just blew me away. It was one of the most stimulating nights I've ever spent in a theatre, like watching a circus, but the acrobatics were with words and ideas. I'd been on the look out for another major Stoppard revival for a while, so I snapped this up, particularly as I love plays about writers/actors and those that have plays within plays.

But I really didn't think this worked. I don't know if it was the script, or the production, but it just felt really heavy handed to me. It never took off. I was expecting a much smarter script, with more layers and more playfulness...

Travesties with Tom Hollander was magnificent but even there I wondered if it was the script or what Marber, Hollander etc did with it that gets the credit.  The script/narrative must have some merit because I remember finding Marber's own Don Juan in Soho - which, if memory serves, was in the WE around the same time - much less impressive.  One problem with The Real Thing is that over the years the script has suffered from a fair bit of censorship tweaking.  Charlotte's line about 'two semi-stiff lower lips' was certainly missing from the last production I saw.  I suspect a lot of the revisions are done by Stoppard himself, but I resisted the temptation to see what the Old Vic made of this.  

[david]

Well, I certainly enjoyed that one at tonight’s show. Whilst the play doesn’t reach the heights of when Travesties when I saw it during its run at the Apollo a few years ago, there was plenty to like with this play to make my trip to the OV worthwhile. Having got the fantastic value stalls seat Q35, there was enough here to get full value out if my ticket. For the 2.5hr run time, I felt it was well paced from director Max Webster and the production held my attention for the duration.

There are elements in Stoppard’s writing here that are now dated such as the sexual dynamics and VHS, but the wit and humour in the writing still stands strong. Whilst neither couple come across as particularly likeable and the writing doesn’t provide enough for you to support either of them, the other idea explored with the art of writing faired better with the Act 2 cricket bat scene being the standout part of the play for me. The use of the play within a play concept was fun, particularly with the use of the “stage crew” and the punctuated use of pop music worked well and provided both comic relief and more emotional impact to scenes. 

Walking into the auditorium, and seeing the set design from Peter McKintish, I did wonder whether I’d stepped into a branch of IKEA at first as that what it looked like, but overall, it was a nice set by a decent lighting design from Richard Howell.

In respect to the casting, we had the full cast on tonight and without a doubt James McArdle is the glue that holds this production together. A fantastic performance from him that balanced both the humour and heartache very nicely. With respect to the other cast members, all were very watchable tonight. 

[bordeaux]

I really enjoyed this. It's a play I know well and, having loved the Donmar production with Stephen Dillane and Jennifer Ehle 25 years ago, went in with a little trepidation, fearful that this couldn't live up to it. It isn't quite as good but it is extremely well done and James McArdle, new to me, is an excellent Henry. It is a very witty play with lots of great lines - most of which hit home (though there are always going to be occasions with Stoppard where you think, if you know the text well, why didn't you say it like that - you've missed the laugh?). But it is also very thoughtful, indeed profound, when talking about love, a subject that does not come up much in modern theatre. When Henry talks about the insularity of love, what it is to know another person and when he reveals his complacency about his relationship with Annie, the writing is first-rate, full of human insight.

Time, surely, for a major revival of Arcadia (the other play, singingbird, as good as Travesties - though very different)? I could see McArdle as Bernard Nightingale.

[artea]

I also liked this a lot. A few things struck me overall though they may be wrong:
The men get many, many more lines than the women;
The men are much stronger actors than the women - maybe because they get more to work with. The first woman onstage is left hanging around too much in silence;
The women determine if a relationship happens, no matter how much more the men say;
The weakest, crumbliest person is a man;
Women can't resist men who make them laugh (as the cliché has it). The wit of the man on the train couldn't fail in the play.

It's still 90% a play for radio, or for reading. I think.