|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 9:12:37 GMT
This show definitely won't be for everyone, but for what it's worth, I think it was great. Janice? Oil give it foive. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 22:16:32 GMT
Just got back from this evenings perforemance and I can say I really enjoyed it. This was clever and a great new piece. I really liked the sound design and the way the actors were at the side of the stage and how it was just all put together. All the performances especially Duffs and Kettles were great , just check this play out.
|
|
1,217 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Oct 15, 2016 22:20:29 GMT
Saw this last night. Disappointed as it seemed to be the same issue highlighted, and then put on repeat in seemingly random time periods, including those future in the second half. Anne Marie Duff is always watchable but she is, as someone else pointed out, making duff choices recently. Cracknell throws everything at it with Mortimer design wise, but it's like Drink It In The Congo: we get the message early on, go somewhere with it: neither play does.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 16, 2016 9:28:52 GMT
My opinion is probably influenced by my companion who announced it 'one of the most irritating plays I've ever seen.'
As Nash16 says the first half is set in the past (1880s, 1908, 1970s) and the second half in the future. I found the first two scenes intriguing and unpredictable. The first scene is lit almost entirely by candle light. From Row H in the stalls it was quite murky and I would imagine the back of the circle it would really be hard to watch. But they created another world and a cold inhospitable environment. The second scene had that awkward thing of an adult playing a young child, but once you got over that, it was an interesting situation - a young wayward woman in Iran with her child looking for adventure - and I particularly liked Anne-Marie Duff in that scene. The third scene lost me entirely - I thought it was ghastly with some really poor attempts at humour (at least I think that's what that on table sex scene was.) At the interval I heard the man in front of me say ,'Well the jury's out. It may be one of those plays where it all comes together in the second half.' The second half began with a weak scene but the last one was, to me, fascinating - I love that sort of dystopian stuff.
My disgruntled companion said: 'Really, really mediocre acting. At least you could see the third scene. Very preachy. Pretentious.' He does have a point on the pretentious stuff - I thought I might like the mic interludes/narration but actually laughed at the 'A woman is on a plan, fly fly fly fly, a stewardess offers her an iced drink as an unmanned airplane drops bombs below' etc. Ditto the dialogue lines 'You're alone' 'But alive.'
The takeaway for me: Our dependency on oil is understandable (established in first scene) but destructive and the playwright aligns this with a woman's need for freedom (not sure I entirely got this connection.)
Last night it was two hours forty including a 20 minute interval (7 p.m. start out at 9.40.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 9:07:10 GMT
Oh Anne-Marie. Such a lovely, intelligent, watchable actress but this is a bit . . what's the word? . . . frustrating. The first half is much better than the second and yes, it has an ambition to it but some of it is just so clunky. Although at least the microphone narration between scenes keep you entertained because they're so cringingly awful. I also thought the third scene (set in the 70s) was an outtake from 'Jumpy' and half expected Tamsin Grieg to jump on stage and whip the scene away from AMD. I think it goes downhill massively in the second half. Like foxa above, I'm not sure I quite got the connection between the dependency on oil and a woman's need for freedom because some of it was just so incoherent at times and then at others it was nicely done, I think the scale of what the writer wanted to do just couldn't be translated to the page or the stage. If the author had just focused on one I think she could have created an interesting play but it seemed like her need to stick the two together by hook or by crook meant that some of it just didn't really work for me.
AMD was marvellous though and she really does have a wonderful charisma and presence on stage, I think she'll continue to be one of our most interesting stage actresses. I found Yolanda Kettle as the various daughters to be different degrees of cliche though.
My spirits almost lifted towards the end when AMD and Kettle put on fat suits and I thought we were either going to get some sumo wrestling or a tribute to French & Saunders' fat old men but also no. The play just goes on. And on.
|
|
81 posts
|
Post by addictedtotheatre on Oct 24, 2016 9:42:33 GMT
Oh Anne-Marie. Such a lovely, intelligent, watchable actress but this is a bit . . what's the word? . . . frustrating. The first half is much better than the second and yes, it has an ambition to it but some of it is just so clunky. Although at least the microphone narration between scenes keep you entertained because they're so cringingly awful. I also thought the third scene (set in the 70s) was an outtake from 'Jumpy' and half expected Tamsin Grieg to jump on stage and whip the scene away from AMD. I think it goes downhill massively in the second half. Like foxa above, I'm not sure I quite got the connection between the dependency on oil and a woman's need for freedom because some of it was just so incoherent at times and then at others it was nicely done, I think the scale of what the writer wanted to do just couldn't be translated to the page or the stage. If the author had just focused on one I think she could have created an interesting play but it seemed like her need to stick the two together by hook or by crook meant that some of it just didn't really work for me. AMD was marvellous though and she really does have a wonderful charisma and presence on stage, I think she'll continue to be one of our most interesting stage actresses. I found Yolanda Kettle as the various daughters to be different degrees of cliche though. My spirits almost lifted towards the end when AMD and Kettle put on fat suits and I thought we were either going to get some sumo wrestling or a tribute to French & Saunders' fat old men but also no. The play just goes on. And on. Pretty much exactly what I thought about the play. Incoherent, rambling and quite often factually wrong. For instance, in the blizzard of slide images I noticed a steam train which is powered by...coal! There is so much to say about oil and its impact on the world - from the 'oil curse' to environmental degradation to allowing a state to export religious fundamentalism (Saudi and wahhabism) but this is just a set of mother-daughter scenes with some half-remembered Guardian articles thrown in. BIG disappointment. |
|
|
|
Post by Coated on Oct 25, 2016 23:05:55 GMT
I felt slightly sullied watching this, like accidentally stumbling over the favourite wank fantasy of a righteous, slightly crusty Islingtonian. Unless it was written by a thirteen year old, in which case I take it back and award a solid B for the creative writing exercise.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Oct 26, 2016 22:24:11 GMT
An ambitious play with an epic feel and a genuinely interesting lead role, played superbly by Anne-Marie Duff. If the ambition isn't quite matched by the achievement then I, for one, can take that. Interesting theatre isn't always the most technically accomplished but if you don't try to do something new then the theatre deteriorates into a diet of seaid old favourites.
This plays with the medium, tells an interesting story and kept the audience - at least when I saw it - entertained. I thought the last scene was the weakest as the fat suits immediately took it into the realm of farce and the dystopia was, frankly, ill-conceived and simply not credible.
Some of the arguments, when they finally got going, were simplistic. To the point where I felt at times the point of view was arguing against the text. But boring this mst definitely is not.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Oct 31, 2016 12:38:44 GMT
Really wouldn't bother seeing this unless a fan of the actors and director, who are blameless. Due there tonight, am wildly enthused after these reviews! And to think of my sense of achievement when I managed to book this and Richard III months back. |
|
38 posts
|
Post by quine on Oct 31, 2016 14:27:44 GMT
Really wouldn't bother seeing this unless a fan of the actors and director, who are blameless. I have to echo this - I managed to the interval and left. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 1, 2016 12:50:28 GMT
My what madness this was. First scene could barely see as all in candle light, the microphone interludes made me want to laugh. There were interesting ideas but it felt like it could have been several different plays and had tried to be one and thus ended up muddled, preachy, felled by its own ambition. I didn't hate it but it did make me want to laugh when I shouldn't, though any mention of sex or swearing from 'adult' characters instantly had a section of the audience who seemed to be some kind of young people's trip out giggling. I booked due to AMD and as ever she is very good but I do wonder how they sold this play to the cast and directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 13:10:00 GMT
Oh those microphone interludes are marvellous - very entertaining!
"A woman gets on a plane. The plane has wings. The plane flies. Fly fly flyyyyyyyyyy. For you are the wind beneath my wings . . . " or words to that effect.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 1, 2016 13:35:06 GMT
Oh those microphone interludes are marvellous - very entertaining! "A woman gets on a plane. The plane has wings. The plane flies. Fly fly flyyyyyyyyyy. For you are the wind beneath my wings . . . " or words to that effect. If I hadn't been a rule abiding and general scared of authority person I'd have snatched the bottle of the person behind me who insisted on undoing and redoing it up every 30 seconds and lobbed it those interludes, I became very tired of that desert and all its mentions. |
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 3, 2016 18:33:15 GMT
Put me firmly in the camp who loved this one! Yes, it was messy, yes it was trying to say an awful lot but it was GREAT! It helped that F12 is such a splendid seat and so felt very "caught up" in the other worlds it created. I hear what people are saying about the facts not being true or the future not being realistic but hey we don't grump about Pinter or Beckett do we? It is one woman's imagination at all points...so cut her some slack and enjoy it for what it is! I loved the "mother daughter" stuff and how "progress" was justified at each stage by being for the child....I loved how they didn't sugar coat the past and even as our "heroine" was in love we could see how women were treated and expected to behave. I loved how it was all staged. I loved that it was mad as a basket of frogs! I came out and walked for an hour and a half sort of thinking and chuckling and thinking some more! Some of the matinee crowd were a bit confused but to their credit most of them seemed to enjoy it!  |
|
181 posts
|
Post by caa on Nov 3, 2016 19:55:23 GMT
On the plus side a 7pm start and a 9.30 finish. On the minus side, most of the play. Oh well....
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 4, 2016 12:45:36 GMT
Plays about energy are always hard as we don't know how things will develop...and don't tell me it will all be renewables in the future because, to be honest, we could be fully renewable now (particularly with hydro electric dams ) but we seem to have just commissioned a new nuclear power station for not very compelling reasons! So....you suspend disbelief and talk about the big issues..... {Spoiler - click to view}
I liked the whole "feminist" theme running through the play...I liked that it tried to deal with the ambition of women and was it better to have the career and vision than settle for love and a family? What is freedom? How do we want to live our lives? What makes us happy? Do we have the right to feel we can "help" other countries and what makes us right? Why should they feel grateful? If they don't feel grateful does this make us angry?
For me this play was all about power - who has it and how will it change in the future. I think our country will have to get poorer as the word "levels up" and I think that is right but how do we get there?
As you can see, one play got me thinking!
Plus I loved the lighting and when they turned on the oil lamp it was great!
|
|
747 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 4, 2016 13:21:48 GMT
{Spoiler - click to view}
You see I took it as things very bad...a bit like my current intermittent 4G coverage...and then new energy source just developed BUT power again in foreign hands.....this time China as the "colonial power" and also mining the moon...and who owns that?!!!! I agree, a bit clunky but lord knows what will happen when they work out what happens with dark matter etc! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 20:19:46 GMT
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 4, 2016 21:23:18 GMT
I really didn't like this - still surprised by all the 4* reviews. However the next day when I was thinking about it and tried to come up with a connection between the scenes, I did think this (which I bet everyone else had already thought but my companion said he hadn't notice.) {Spoiler - click to view}
A connection between the scenes is the mother and daughter. Though they aren't the same mother and daughter they are ageing through the scenes. In the first scene, the mother is pregnant with her first child. The second, she has a little girl. The third, she has a teenager and so forth. So there is a tracking of mother/daughter relationship but on a two parallel time scales: a historic one and a personal one. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 4, 2016 21:24:03 GMT
Oooh - see what I did? Posted my first spoiler!!!
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Nov 4, 2016 21:53:14 GMT
Oooh - see what I did? Posted my first spoiler!!! #theatreboardgeek |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 4, 2016 21:56:52 GMT
Have yet to post mine as still haven't work out how to get off quick reply which doesn't show me all the button options and onto the full reply version that does. I noticed that one Foxa but did miss most of the others that people have mentioned here and am yet to work out that final moment.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 4, 2016 22:24:21 GMT
Peggs, as I am now, of course, the expert....
You see 'Quick Reply'? Just look along that bar and you will see 'Reply' - click on that.
Then there will be a bunch of mysterious little icons. One looks like a little face being tortured. Click on that for Spoilers and it tell you to type your Spoiler into the box.
Voila!
#TheatreboardPRO
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 5, 2016 18:27:01 GMT
Testing testing now can I get this to work? |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Nov 5, 2016 18:27:48 GMT
Thanks Foxa and Theatremonkey, am all clued up now.
|
|
