A Pacifists Guide To The War On Cancer - Home MCR and NT

[Someone in a tree]

I went on Monday and thought it was brilliant. Can't say anything without giving it's theatrical kick in the stomach away! It's very powerful

On Monday we had an interval - is this still in the show?

[avenueqresident]

Oct 19, 2016 9:47:27 GMT Someone in a tree said:

I went on Monday and thought it was brilliant. Can't say anything without giving it's theatrical kick in the stomach away! It's very powerful

On Monday we had an interval - is this still in the show?

It was in Tuesday's show so I presume this is permanent. It is certainly a show of two halves, but at the same time I did wonder whether they needed it and whether it would be more impactful to go straight through into the second half while you've still got the audience's attention.

Very powerful and important piece indeed though which had me in tears at the end.

[andrew]

Oh I didn't get one on Saturday... I have to say apart from the fact I generally like a little break to discuss things in the middle of shows I didn't really miss the interval for this. It was sort of an experience to go through it all. Can I ask where the interval is?

[showgirl]

Yes, just read a blog review mentioning the interval whereas as Andrew says, as recently as Saturday there was none. Probably just as well for me since though it was a bit long to sit through without the chance to stretch my legs, I might not have returned had there been an interval!

[MrBunbury]

The interval is there. I went last night and I found the show excellent. It is not so common to have an ensemble where every singer stands out and at the same time blends seamlessly in the group. The second half is a real game changer, very moving, honest and brave. Bryony Kimmings was sitting not far from me and she looked very pleased. I definitely recommend the show!

[showgirl]

I agree re the singing, which, as I originally, said, was the best part for me. I am however puzzled by references to the second half being different, as some of the reviews have said the same. I know I saw the show without the "benefit" of the interval so had there been one, the distinction might have been clearer, but I honestly couldn't say I noticed any obvious shift in mood, tone, treatment, etc. Wondering what I missed...

[Deleted]

One star from the Times

Two from ES

[showgirl]

So many of the positive reviews say how "moving" or even "deeply moving" this was. I simply don't agree. Obviously I can't dispute the personal responses of others, but to make such a claim as if it was a fact is wrong.

[Deleted]

But if the critic writing the review was moved, then surely it would be factually wrong to say it wasn't moving? And since when have reviews ever been more about plain facts than the reviewer's opinion anyway? 

[MrBunbury]

Oct 20, 2016 13:14:01 GMT showgirl said:

So many of the positive reviews say how "moving" or even "deeply moving" this was. I simply don't agree. Obviously I can't dispute the personal responses of others, but to make such a claim as if it was a fact is wrong.

So in your opinion when one could say that something is "moving"? When 100% of the audience cries? Of course saying that the show was 'moving' reflects a subjective response, and in this case it is mostly based on personal experiences and connections with people with cancer.

[Someone in a tree]

Cancer has not really touched me but the death of friends and close family has - this play tapped into those aspects for me

[Deleted]

Oct 20, 2016 8:47:06 GMT showgirl said:

I agree re the singing, which, as I originally, said, was the best part for me. I am however puzzled by references to the second half being different, as some of the reviews have said the same. I know I saw the show without the "benefit" of the interval so had there been one, the distinction might have been clearer, but I honestly couldn't say I noticed any obvious shift in mood, tone, treatment, etc. Wondering what I missed...

Sounds as if you thought it was finished at the interval and so left then and missed the second half!

[showgirl]

I see what you are saying, Mr Bunbury and Someone In A Tree; I suppose I felt particularly uncomfortable about a reviewer apparently thinking she spoke for everyone when I couldn't relate to her claims; as if I was somehow a fraud if I didn't speak up. Anyway, I'm with the Standard and Telegraph writers, both of whom used the word "mawkish" and others such as "sentimental" and "cartoon" and said that they were squirming and that rather than feeling involved and touched, their instinct was to leave.

It's not that I haven't experienced cancer and other serious illnesses in both my immediate and wider family and amongst friends, colleagues, etc; on the contrary, perhaps it's precisely because cancer seems so normal and widespread that for me there is no taboo to be broken or mystery to be solved, etc.

[Phantom of London]

I found this wonderful, thought provoking and emotional, this does what theatre does best and goes into that No Man's Land of taboo subjects? This reminded me in lots of ways of Love Story, which I also got very moved by.

2 words got me in the end and that was 'Jade Goody', a person time has managed to expunge from my memory. It reminded me how she was open-season for the press because she was deemed to be vacuous, she had the most nasty and reprehensible attacks made on her, because she thought Cambridge was somewhere in London for example. Before her untimely death, she made the most of her precious time, by raising as much money possible to bring her children up, when she went to join the Angels. I found her inspirational despite her lack of depth, which wasn't helped by a grim childhood. Reading her Wiki page in the interval, I had a tear or two run down my cheek, as it reminded me how cynical and nasty the press were.

As much as I loved the premise of this musical, I found the music to be very pedestrian and they over egged the sympathy aspect at times, however if the ushers were handing tissues out in the end, I am sure a few would have been taken.

4 stars

[Mark]

I enjoyed it too POL. Saw the evenings performance. It did go in a direction I didn't expect towards the end by really breaking the fourth wall. I think it would have played better without an interval.

The performances were wonderful, very high energy and fully committed.

[Deleted]

I hated this too I'm afraid. I was thankful for the unnecessary interval and took the opportunity to escape.

Didn't help that I was sitting in the terrible side seats in the gallery, a useful reminder never to book them. Crazy they spent so long refurbishing the theatre and ended up with a huge bunch of seats that can literally see half the stage. (I know they are sold as restricted view but even so!)

[showgirl]

Oct 24, 2016 18:21:26 GMT @xanderl said:

I hated this too I'm afraid. I was thankful for the unnecessary interval and took the opportunity to escape.

Didn't help that I was sitting in the terrible side seats in the gallery, a useful reminder never to book them. Crazy they spent so long refurbishing the theatre and ended up with a huge bunch of seats that can literally see half the stage. (I know they are sold as restricted view but even so!)

I do so agree about the wasted opportunity during the refurb, i.e. to improve the side seats in the upper levels.  As in my post, if you are lucky enough to book one of these at stage level (depending on the configuration), it's the equivalent of winning the lottery, albeit only the Todaytix version; however it's ludicrous that you could pay the same for a different level and end up with so much worse a view.

[Flim Flam]

Oct 24, 2016 18:21:26 GMT @xanderl said:

I hated this too I'm afraid. I was thankful for the unnecessary interval and took the opportunity to escape.

Didn't help that I was sitting in the terrible side seats in the gallery, a useful reminder never to book them. Crazy they spent so long refurbishing the theatre and ended up with a huge bunch of seats that can literally see half the stage. (I know they are sold as restricted view but even so!)

Yes, I totally agree about the Gallery, which was where I was seated for The Flick. When you sat down properly in your seat (not leaning far forwards) you literally lost half of the stage. As a lot of the action took place on that side of the stage it was impossible to tell what was happening. In fact if the people next to me had leant forwards at all I would not have seen anything. 

I actually remonstrated with one of the staff in the interval (something I would never normally do as of course you expect a poorer quality view for a lower price) and she admitted that it was a problem, particularly with that production, and moved me downstairs. I got the impression that I was not the first person to have complained. 

I don't mind a bit of restricted view (I don't actually remember those seats being advertised as restricted view, although I may just have missed the warning), but this was extraordinary. What were they thinking? Or maybe they don't venture up there themselves. 

The only other place as bad as this is the upstairs of the Sam Wanamaker, and I have sworn a sacred oath to myself never to go upstairs there again.

[showgirl]

Maybe it's time theatres were required to be more specific about the restriction? Which in fairness to the few, some already are, e.g. they specify the location of a handrail or pillar. It might be difficult to express a restriction in percentage terms but if, as in the above example, it was as much as 50%, people could at least make an informed decision. And who knows, if in due course this info had a detrimental impact on bookings, theatres might be moved to re-jig the seating or change the prices.

[Deleted]

To be fair, at the Dorfman if you select one of the gallery seats it says "GALLERY - RESTRICTED VIEW. You may need to lean forward throughout - there is a bar in front for you to lean on"

So they do warn you, but I wouldn't expect that warning to imply you can only see half the stage. Plus they charge £25 for them!

[Deleted]

When I saw it in Manchester I thought that, by the interval, it didn't really need to be a musical or to be at the NT.

Then I saw the second half.

It pretty much trashed its own first half as being well meaning but incapable of success and then proceeded to dismantle the whole idea of a musical about cancer, turning into a piece of live art such as you might have initially expected from Bryony Kimmings.

This is one case where, on its own, the first half is not indicative of the final effect. Of course musical fans may well hate act two and live art fans may give up before the end of act one, so a dangerous game to play.

[DuchessConstance]

Kimmings' Twitter feuds with critics are certainly entertaining, whatever you think of her work.

[bellboard27]

Went over the weekend. An odd show for me, in that at the time I reacted relatively positively, but have grown more negative about it since. As others have said, the two halves are quite different and this did not work for me (though I don't object to it in principle). I liked that it drew on real experiences. However, while some of it touched me, it did not move me as I thought it might.

[theatre-turtle]

I thought the first half was stronger than the second.

I didn't appreciate the attempt to hit you over the head with sentiment. I felt like there was no subtlety, just an attempt at pulling on the heart strings with every tool possible.

Having said that, the waterworks were well and truly on by the end. During the 'audience participation' section one member of the audience sat directly in front of me said 'my son ...[name]'. I don't think there were any dry eyes in the stalls.

But as I said, I could make a show that created this effect too with a combination of starving children, dying kittens, natural disasters, children living in warzones etc. - it doesn't make it a good piece of theatre.

[n1david]

UK tour and return to the NT later this year in a reworked version:
www.complicite.org/productions/APacifistsGuideToTheWarOnCancer