Alma Mater - Almeida

[aspieandy]

Patsy not free ..

[pws]

I am going Saturday next (29th) so hopefully it should be back on track by then.
Will report...

[aloysius]

By contrast I just got an email in my spam on Weds telling me tonight's performance was cancelled and no follow up. Only just found it when searching the inbox for my ticket (have been slack on looking at whatsonstage this week for theatre news). I find it's the smaller theatres who do worse when there's a known show cancellation in terms of contacting ticket holders than the bigger ones, despite far fewer texts that need sending. The Almeida definitely have my number.

[parsley1]

The box office are dreadful

They expect customers to pay the difference when rebooking seats if your original and cheaper option is not available on your alternative date

Fortunately the development department are more understanding and realistic about the high number of cancellations and rearrangements over the last 2-3 years

And accommodate to new seats at no extra cost

[Dave B]

Has anyone been in since this re-started to give an update?

[aspieandy]

Also look forward to feedback.

It reads more like Jo Rowling vs. the wokery but I'd love this to have a little of Oleanna about it and a hint of The Doctor. These are fast-moving issues in society though; not easy to stay relevant of the discourse.

[eatbigsea]

I’ve been hesitant to post but saw the matinee yesterday. Rupert Goold gave a kind of introduction explaining the situation and asked for kindness. Justine Mitchell was using a script which was a bit distracting but generally ok, she is a wonderful actor and will be great in the part. The acting was generally very good. My issue is more with the play itself. It may be that I particularly think it’s flawed as I work in academia, and a similar situation would never occur as it is set out in the play. I’ll try to elaborate in a separate post using spoiler tags. Essentially the play itself deals well with issues like the feminist generation gap (although it doesn’t touch trans, which is what seems to me to be the main feminist issue dividing the generations). But I just couldn’t help constantly thinking that particular events would never happen in reality.

[eatbigsea]

Jun 27, 2024 15:43:41 GMT eatbigsea said:

I’ve been hesitant to post but saw the matinee yesterday. Rupert Goold gave a kind of introduction explaining the situation and asked for kindness. Justine Mitchell was using a script which was a bit distracting but generally ok, she is a wonderful actor and will be great in the part. The acting was generally very good. My issue is more with the play itself. It may be that I particularly think it’s flawed as I work in academia, and a similar situation would never occur as it is set out in the play. I’ll try to elaborate in a separate post using spoiler tags. Essentially the play itself deals well with issues like the feminist generation gap (although it doesn’t touch trans, which is what seems to me to be the main feminist issue dividing the generations). But I just couldn’t help constantly thinking that particular events would never happen in reality.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler - click to view}A first year student is sexually assaulted and is befriended by two other university students, a strident woman third year who has her own reasons for wanting publicity, and a male third year who likes her a lot but has no idea about romance.

Then there’s Justine Mitchell’s Master of the College, who is a tough former journalist coming back to the college, where she was a student. She doesn’t like social media and thinks young women should worry about real concerns (like her friend who was raped and murdered at the college in the 80s). Her cohort include a male professor friend who is the chair of the board and his wife, another professor. They were all at uni together.

The levels of unreality are several - first, students and lecturers may have been buddy-buddy as is set out in the play in the 1980s, but that does not happen now. The way Justine Mitchell’s character speaks to the students (one in particular) is incredibly unrealistic. Parents of students get involved and are spoken to without any regard for confidentiality (hello, GDPR). People who have very close personal relationships take decisions about employment without recusing themselves. And there would have been many, many threats of lawsuits a lot earlier on in the process, the way this is set out.

I haven’t even really explained the meat of the play, which as I mentioned deals with the generation gap amongst feminists with respect to sexual assault, social media etc. That part is ok, if completely unrealistic in terms of what would actually happen when “rapists” are named online.

[tlppi]

humm... i saw this first preview, and liked it enough. has anyone seen the before/after and can say if it's different enough to warrant a revisit? (once mitchell's learnt her part, i s'pose)... out of interest more than anything...

(i'd miss my lovely £5 tickets though. back row of circle is a bit of a different proposition to front of stalls 😅...)

[juicy_but_terribly_drab]

I liked but didn't love this at today's free under 25s performance. It generated very lively discussions amongst my friends afterwards but I don't think as a play it quite holds together. Characters seem to disappear for long stretches of time and it's not really clear who our protagonist is but it doesn't feel like an ensemble either, it just feels like a structural issue. The writing of the younger characters is also quite clunky in the first 10/15 minutes (and at some of the other points, especially in relation to technology). I thought the 2nd act was an improvement - the balance of the viewpoints felt better. The ending was a total anticlimax though. Still like I said a lot of interesting ideas bouncing around and I was glad it didn't feel preachy in the end (I was slightly worried in the first act it might)!

[oedipus]

Jun 27, 2024 15:43:41 GMT eatbigsea said:

It may be that I particularly think it’s flawed as I work in academia, and a similar situation would never occur as it is set out in the play.

I saw the play this evening, and was so glad to read eatbigsea's reaction above: I also work in academia, and I kept thinking, "This scene would never happen." (And I hated myself for thinking that; the same must happen to lawyers when they see plays set in e.g. law courts!)

But even setting aside the mechanics of reporting a sexual assault on a campus, the play doesn't quite gel as a play, despite a really game cast and some snappy, fiery dialogue. (Justine Mitchell was script in hand; and she was great.) The problem is it's all two- and three-person conversations (some quite animated) about a particularly fraught issue, and so the play is basically all talk, disclosure, and then argument. The resolution, such as it is, is weird and not particularly satisfying, and the larger themes (particularly of feminism, then-and-now) are interesting but sometimes obliquely related to the actual crisis on campus.

So: I dunno. I *guess* I would recommend it if you like plays set in academia. (It reminded me a little of Wasserstein's _Third_ in its structure.) But with next-to-no set and props, it's pretty much a play of ideas, sometimes too many. (A subplot about diversity of religion on campus seems to evaporate into the ether: the play could profitably trim some of that.)

[Dave B]

A very quiet Saturday afternoon matinee. We had been moved upstairs to the side seats by BO when they rebooked us but with A LOT of empty space, we got moved to second row on the circle which was a decent view.

No Rupert Goold but a FOH manager who explained the change and suggested we'd see 'fleeting glimpses' of a script... Well, no Justine Mitchell was script in hand and using it pretty much throughout. Which was a huge shame as she's clearly a really talented actress but limited by not knowing the piece yet.

Otherwise, this feels tonally all over the place. I agree with comments above about the events being so unlikely, in particular the lack of lawyers until quite a while in. I don't understand why we start with all the characters sitting at the back when they are off scene but then vanish for huge chunks later on. Pick one or the other.

I have no idea who I am meant to agree with or disagree with, I don't know who the protagonist or antagonist is meant to be. I was left feeling that the change in cast has meant no time or attention to tinker with the play itself and make that work better through previews - this time has had to be spent on the cast change. It seems to work hard not to take any sides but just to present some pretty broad viewpoints. The ending kind of just is and my better half notes there is a whole plot about religion which the play starts with that then just vanishes into nowhere. Maybe there is a line missing about the assault and issues stemming from that taking over everything but it seems odd - nothing really hangs together. There are efforts at commenting on social media and on Facebook but it feels like a lot just thrown into a melting pot.

A most unpleasant interval too as two women sat nearby, in their 80s I would guess, had a very loud conversation which included such gems as how women these days are 'offering themselves' as they go around with their 'boobs hanging out', how are the 'poor young men' meant to know the girls now say no. No pity for the girls and then the girls 'get the bandwagon rolling' and then to top it all off 'no wonder the Asian men are at the girls'. Just vile nonsense

[parsley1]

I mean it ends in less than 3 weeks

Pretty pointless having a PN

Although I think Justine Mitchell is a much better actress than Lia Williams

[tommy]

Great acting and congrats to Justine Mitchell for stepping in at such sort notice, and being already convincing in the part after only a couple of performances (the use of a script didn't bother me, given the circumstances).

The play itself and staging included some strong, intense moments, but I had the impression that the flow and timing after the interval was much more equal than within the first half.
I agree with the comment somebody made above, about the characters sitting at the back - and you would expect all through the play as a choice been made - but strange that this didn't continue for the rest of the play. In my opninion if the line hereby were to be extended over the whole play (not partly, same as for the music, lighting effects), the intensity of the production in its entirety would become stronger.

Curious to read the reviews, as I assume a new press night later in the run.

[pws]

I was there yesterday afternoon.
Not too bothered about the lead having the script except when she lost her place or had to turn the page, but it didn't spoil the show.
I was next to a Psychology professor from Oxford University who had come down especially. In the very pleasant interval, she was telling me all sorts of subtleties that had gone over my head.

[foxa]

A lot of us were in yesteday afternoon!

I kept waiting for the play to take off and it just didn't. Justine Mitchell, who is an excellent actor, was still very much on script, so there was not a lot of eye contact. The little bit of handling of props that there was didn't yet seem comfortable. In terms of how an investigation would be conducted, a lot of it seemed risible, but if it worked in terms of drama or characterisation, I was willing to suspend my disbelief - but it didn't. The characters were all pretty unlikeable, which is okay, but then I might want them to be more engaging/entertaining/telling. Perhaps that was part of the evenhandedness - to not care about anyone.

As I think someone above noted, the second act was stronger than the first - more original, at times, more nuanced/surprising. For me, a couple of genuine laughs. Perhaps perversely, for a play that focuses on feminism, my favourite performances were those of Nathaniel Parker (what a great voice and presence he has) and Liam Lau-Fernandez.

It may well significantly improve once they have played together more. Currently, 2 and a half stars from me, but could easily imagine it being a 3 next week.

[parsley1]

You would think

Would you not

Justine Mitchell

Would have learnt her lines

By now

🙄

[david]

A trip to the Almeida for this afternoon’s show kicked off my first double show day. I had a similar experience to members who have recently seen this. We had a member of the management team give a short announcement that Justine had taken over from Lia and would have a script in hand for the show. I will say based on this viewing it wasn’t too bad. Yes there were scenes where it was obvious but thankfully it wasn’t for the entire performance and to step in like this is no mean feat and got plenty of support both preshow and at cast bows from the audience. I will say I thought she was absolutely terrific here. 

Despite the late cast change, I’m sorry to say this really didn’t do much for me except leave me frustrated at what could have been. Whilst I have absolutely no issues with any of the cast in this show who I thought did a really great job given the situation, the fundamental issue for me was with the writing from Kendall Fraiser. After a 2.5hr run time I’m wasn’t really sure what message or messages she was trying to get over here. With so many issues being explored, none really hit the mark by the end or just seemed to disappear without trace (the prayer room one in particular). In all it just seemed a very general piece of writing. Given the subject of rape culture in academia being at the core of this piece, it should of been hard hitting with real emotional impact watching it, but in all honesty, whilst I wasn’t bored thanks to the cast, there just wasn’t anything to care about here (I couldn’t get behind any of the characters or their individual plot strands). If as an audience member such an emotive subject as this doesn’t hit you on any level, then that is a major failure in the writing. With that ending, what was that all about? I thought it ended with the scene with Justine was alone with the painting which would have ended it well then to my surprise you get another scene after which just didn’t make any sense or was earned based on the previous scenes. Act 2 was certainly the stronger and better paced on for me. 

Normally, when I can’t get on with the writing, I turn to the more techy stuff to try and find the positives in this show but with the minimalistic set design and a lighting design that really didn’t do much I did struggle to make this viewing a bit more positive. I will say that as I booked this quite late on my normal partially restricted seat in F18 was unavailable so plumped for a similar seat in F12 for £25 and taking my seat I was pleasantly surprised to find that my view wasn’t restricted at all and got the same view as folks who probably paid twice as much as myself. If nothing else it was a worthwhile testing out other seats for future visits. 

[parsley1]

Found this only moderately dreadful

It’s not a good play at all

And I found Justine Mitchell distracting with huge sections being just read out from the text

Not even any effort to disguise this

But I managed to stay for the entire show this time

Moreover it’s another example of pretty good casting and seasoned actors

But mediocre material

Shame

[pws]

There are some reviews out for this now, in the past couple of days, and they are pretty good or better.

[andthelight]

I saw this tonight and enjoyed it. Some meaty issues and some of them aren't really dealt with in depth, but the overall message of the play comes across clearly. Act 1 is a fair bit stronger than act 2, and I got a strong feeling of not really knowing how it was going to wrap itself up (the subject-matter means there are no easy resolutions). Glad I got to see it, and didn't mine that Justine Mitchell still has a script on stage, she only uses it fleetingly and mostly the brain just edits it out.

[Rory]

Jul 9, 2024 22:19:34 GMT andthelight said:

I saw this tonight and enjoyed it. Some meaty issues and some of them aren't really dealt with in depth, but the overall message of the play comes across clearly. Act 1 is a fair bit stronger than act 2, and I got a strong feeling of not really knowing how it was going to wrap itself up (the subject-matter means there are no easy resolutions). Glad I got to see it, and didn't mine that Justine Mitchell still has a script on stage, she only uses it fleetingly and mostly the brain just edits it out.

JM must know the script by now, surely?

[andthelight]

It was stlll in her hand throughout and felt like she referred to it a couple of times. Maybe she’s so used to having it now that to get rid of it would be strange.

[tmesis]

Saturday Matinee.

Justine Mitchell Scriptwatch:

It’s still there!

…although she only looks at it around 20% of the time.

Good performances all round but the play’s pretty average.

[Steve]

I caught this at the Wednesday matinee which was recorded for the V and A archive, so, should I wish to do so, I could track down and watch the same performance again lol.

I won't though, because while I thought the smarts and themes of the play were great, I found it a dry and insufficiently characterised show.

Some spoilers follow. . .

This very much put me in mind of Yeats's most quoted poem:

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

Basically, Justine Mitchell's Jo is the falconer who can't keep hold of her falcon; she's the centre that cannot hold. She thinks she can talk people into reason, that she can deal with stuff case by case, but she's living in a world that's spiraling into camps, and everyone's got a lawyer except her.

Most of the characters other than Jo are unlikeable: one kid has a lawyer to justify wrecking paintings; one kid doesn't give a fig about a rape victim's wishes; the rapists Mum is on a rampage (to be fair, Susanah Wise's line that Uni boys these days need a "backpack of consent forms" was genuinely funny) to protect her never-depicted son; the headmaster (or whatever he is) quotes Omar Khayyam poetry but is responsible for the Uni's regressive culture.

The rape victim doesn't even believe she's been raped at first, but concludes it must have happened, because although she and the rapist were both blotto and neither can remember a thing, she WOULD have demanded a condom be used, and since it wasn't, she reasons she must have been raped in the event she can't recall. Mitchell's Jo thinks a distinction should be made between deliberate violent rapes and rapes noone can remember, she thinks that rape victims should talk to her themselves rather than activists who claim to be representing said victims in the course of their activism, but of course, for Jo, the world has moved on, and case-by-case reasonableness is only going to get her well and truly Yeats-ed!

All this, I thought, was great stuff, and I appreciated the way the playwright didn't take obvious sides, and just presented her "facts."

But in culture wars plays that have moved me, like "Prima Facie" (Jodie Comer raging against rape laws) or "Eureka Day" (Helen Hunt raging against vaccine mandates), so much character work was put in by those respective playwrights to get us loving the characters and worlds before those worlds were torn apart.

Here, almost every word everyone says is part of the playwright's schematics to set up the themes. There are no characters to root for in and of themselves. Apart from Jo, everyone is a cipher.

I loved the themes, I didn't love the characters. I thought Justine Mitchell (off book) was terrific, and boy, did she have a huge amount of lines to learn, which she put across with absolute scorn and conviction.

But overall, the other two plays I cited above riled me up emotionally much much more than this play as I was involved in the worlds of those plays before the action kicked off. 3 and a half stars from me for this show.