Love at NT

[bellboard27]

Don't think there is a thread for this production, which starts tomorrow (6 Dec) and runs to 10 Jan:

"In the run up to Christmas, three families are placed into cramped temporary accommodation. A middle-aged man and his elderly mum, a young family with a baby on the way, a newly arrived woman from Sudan. Strangers. Forced together. No space is personal."

I am going later this week and have a £15 stage seat (no idea what that will be like).

[Deleted]

I booked for this in the end, but it does sound hilariously non-festive and designed to wind up Quentin Letts!

[showgirl]

I also booked but will have to change the date (thank goodness the NT allows this), as I am finally having the knee op I've needed for 8 months, so will be confined to quarters for a fortnight. (I mention this for the benefit of anyone inclined to make ill-informed comments about those preferring aisle seats.) Hence I'll be keen to read early reports!

[Mark]

Anyone seen yet?

[showgirl]

No, and still keen to read reports, as it has proved impossible to change my booking unless I am prepared to pay £25 extra to exchange my ticket, which is way beyond my spending limit for any space at the NT. Neither do I wish to have a refund and lose £2 of the original cost, so if it turns out to be brilliant, I may offer my ticket on here - I got a great deal.

[Deleted]

LOVE GOOD

HATE BAD

just saying

[Deleted]

I saw this on Friday



I 100% support making people more aware of the difficulties faced in negotiating the perils of council housing and temporary accommodation sector



However the acting and projection of the actors leaves much to be desired and really let the play down



It also fails to offer any real insight into how the characters shown ended up in their individual situations

They were all portrayed as helpless and lacking any initiative

There was some nice character observation and quirky scenes and the 2 children actors (it seems the roles rotate between 3 girls and boys) were excellent

But I felt it was bit of a wasted opportunity

Some of the audience were obviously stunned and moved at the end but as the play did not offer any solutions or even bother to challenge the characters but treated them all as victims it was rather limiting 

I think there have been better plays and documentaries and films tackling this subject matter 

[bellboard27]

This will divide audiences, but I liked this. For those that saw Beyond Caring (NT Temporary Theatre and previously at the Yard), if you liked that, you will like this. If you did not, then probably do not go. Same director, some of the same actors, same approach in telling the stories of those who find it hard to get themselves heard.

Set in temporary accommodation (that may not be so temporary), the characters are a son and his elderly mother (going senile, incontinent), a family with 2 children (and expecting one more). There is also a Sudanese woman and a guy from Syria, but these are there largely to add some context.

The action is on the floor of the Dorfman, so allowing the seating to spread towards the set (I sat on a ‘stage seat’ to the side and its view was fine), which I think aims to add to the feeling of lack of personal space for the characters.

The play tells the frustrating day to day life of the characters, their difficulties interacting, their problems moving forward. It begins very slowly, but then the characters emerge. There are occasional moments of drama. In particular there is one moment of minor violence which was very well done, coming from an unexpected source, directed to an unexpected person and with a very unexpected result.

This production produced a strong emotional reaction for me.

Running time for this preview was 1 hour 35 straight through.

Finally, I agree with Parsley that the actors playing the children(not sure which of the alternates it was) were excellent.

[showgirl]

OK, probably time to accept that I won't be going to the ball as post-op I won't be mobile enough by Thursday 29 December and the NT want an extra £25 to change my ticket as I got a great deal.

So, if I were able to work out the logistics of payment and collection (haven't collected ticket yet for this very reason), would anyone be interested, please?

I've got a brilliant (imho) aisle seat in the front-facing stalls (F17) for the evening performance on the above date, for which I paid £10. Worst case scenario I lose £2 obtaining a part-refund, but if anyone here would like to benefit, please let me know.

[bellboard27]

Some reviews in:
5 stars: The Times (Dominic Maxwell's favourite show of the year)
4 stars: Guardian, Telegraph, The Stage, Time Out
3 stars: What's on Stage

[Steve]

Saw this last night. Absolutely brilliant, uncontrived, meaningful theatre.

While some may find the pared back drama uneventful, this for me was more impactful than the National's earlier minimally contrived dramas: "The Flick" and "Beyond Caring."

Some spoilers follow. . .

As an antidote to the by-the-numbers dramatising of most plays, "The Flick" felt fresh, involving three characters simply sweeping a cinema and living life. But for all it's exceptional characterisation, vivid observation of moment to moment interaction and authentic pace, "The Flick" was a hoary old love triangle.

In "Beyond Caring," Alexander Zeldin also opted for a meticulously slow and detailed observation of life, involving endless sweeping and factory work through the night. But he snuck in obvious contrivances to ram his points home. Janet Etuk's character not only had to sweep through the night, she had to do it with arthritic hands, constantly bullied by her unnecessarily cruel and pedantic boss, played by Luke Clarke.

In this play, Etuk and Clarke are back, but now there is nothing contrived. They are a couple, just like any couple, with two kids, the girl excitedly rehearsing her nativity play, the boy lost in a laptop. This is a world the National audience will recognise: it's them.

The couple happen to be living in temporary accommodation, Apartment 5, and each day, off stage, Luke Clarke's Dean visits the requisite Government Office to sort out permanent housing.

Next door, in Apt 6, Nick Holder's character cares for his infirm old mum, played by Anna Calder-Marshall, so he can't work. He's also off each day to the benefits office.

No doubt the National audience also have mums and sons, who would look after them, if it came to it.

The play is these two families interacting, in their shared living space, in believable, and for the most part, in apparently uncontrived ways. The details of their interactions are routine and relentlessly credible, and through small well-observed scenes, we come to know and relate to everyone in the play. For everyone, a different detail will signal the moment you are completely sucked into this world: for me, it was when Dean put up Christmas decorations to make the anonymous housing cosy for his kids. From that moment, this show upset me more than any show this year.

The lights are on in the auditorium, so in the least intrusive, most effective Brechtian way possible, we are forced to acknowledge that the characters we are watching are just like us.

The danger for a show like this one is that people who need to see it, won't. Which is why the National Dorfman is the perfect auditorium. If any space is booked in London, as a matter of rote, it's this one, where the danger of a great show selling out prompts regulars to buy tickets to every show regardless.

This isn't as entertaining or as well-characterised as "The Flick," but it's more immersive, it's more recognisable, and it's ultimately more hard hitting.

Anna Calder-Marshall as the Old Mum, Janet Etuk as the expectant Mum, Luke Clarke as the Dad, Nick Holder as the Carer and Darcey Brown as the exuberant little girl are pitch perfect.

5 stars

[Phantom of London]

This is the best play at the National since People, Places, Things.

A modern day tragedy that really speaks of today and gives a voice to the vulnerable and downtrodden that so often goes unheard and are all but marginised by society, which in turn is driven by certain media and I don't need to give you clues on which one/s.

5 stars

[Mark]

Managed to get a dayseat online for tonight. Glad to be reading such positive things.

[DuchessConstance]

It's one of those quiet, documentary-like plays that creeps up on you. The night I saw it a woman in the front burst into tears and held hands with the elderly actress.

[Deleted]

🎄

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2016 14:18:31 GMT DuchessConstance said:

It's one of those quiet, documentary-like plays that creeps up on you. The night I saw it a woman in the front burst into tears and held hands with the elderly actress.

Waitrose was probably out of quinoa

The play fails to question anything

And instead just trys to guilt trip a middle class audience

Why- for example- is the woman having a third child when they already have 2 to look after and no housing or income?

It would make too much sense to challenge people's behaviour and get them to take some responsibility

So instead we like indulging in the after effects and blaming other people for our woes

Nothing is explored in detail

The residents are all presented as intellectually lacking zombies without any resourcefulness

I found it so patronising

[DuchessConstance]

Presumably, like the many people who are in that situation in real life, they had a house and a solid income when she became pregnant 8 months or so earlier.

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2016 14:56:37 GMT DuchessConstance said:

Presumably, like the many people who are in that situation in real life, they had a house and a solid income when she became pregnant 8 months or so earlier.

We don't need to discuss the problems with modern society on this forum

However in my own personal opinion people don't plan ahead and save

Before starting a family people should have contingency and a stable state

And look ahead a bit more

Things happen and if they lost their house and ended up like this in less than a year where were their savings and assets?

Perhaps this play might make people more cautious and thoughtful though

And that is a good thing

Most people are only thinking of day to day selfishly and can't see past their own nose



I would love to have loads of children and do lots of things which I realise aren't realistic for me

The play only showed the temporary housing as shameful and negative
They all behaved like prisoners as if they were there against their will
At least they had this option in the first place

[Deleted]

Ooh, I think you're showing your age a bit, Parsley. I don't think your personal opinion has anything to do with the fact that living has become extremely expensive and wages haven't risen in line with that. The average house used to cost four times the average annual wage, so getting on the property ladder was way easier than nowadays, when the average house costs twelve times the average annual wage. Even so, there's an expectation that people should be spending a third or less of their take-home pay on their mortgage or rent costs; actual figures are closer to half. It looks like employment is way up, but the people who compile the statistics merrily include part time jobs and zero hour contracts, while a not insignificant number of people are both in employment *and* homeless because they're simply not earning very much. As people can't afford to buy property, they are very much at the mercy of private landlords, against whom they have very little legal protection. I'm really happy for you if you're stable enough to find the entire preceding paragraph preposterous, but having been through redundancy and unscrupulous landlords and with the property ladder an EXTREMELY distant dream, I can confirm from personal experience and basic empathy that the country is in crisis and it's extremely unlikely to be the fault of the person who is unemployed, and/or homeless, whether they're pregnant or not.

And if you don't want to discuss the problems with modern society on this forum, then you should really avoid seeing plays that are DESIGNED TO START A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH MODERN SOCIETY.

[Deleted]

I know it's probably not going to change minds about the play but the Guardian had an article on the very subject of how people are very often one lack of paycheck away from homelessness, and how many homeless people are indeed in work of all sorts just yesterday:
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/21/homelessness-england-rising-scandal-rough-sleeping

[Deleted]

World population needs to stop growing

People need to have fewer or no children

And get with the times

That show at the RC a whole back presented the issue nicely

[Deleted]

Exactly, @emicardiff . I'd love to plan ahead and save for every eventuality, and I do my best and could probably get by for a month or two if disaster were to strike, but it'd be far from easy, and anyone who thinks "well just CUT DOWN ON YOUR LITTLE LUXURIES YOU IDIOT" should bear in mind that 1) a lot of people can't even afford little luxuries so have no spending they can cut down on, and 2) economists have proven that it's living costs that make today a difficult time to live in, not the spending habits of today's people.

[Deleted]

Yup and yup @baemax

While I personally have chosen not to have children, that isn't actually really here or there in the equation. No matter how much a person saves without say a windfall or partner/parents/fallback we are all unfortunately only a few catastrophes away from financial disaster. Employment is precarious, life is expensive. One could lose a job and then have a car accident that incapacitates and costs you money all within a few weeks (just by way of example) and savings only last so long. And take far longer to build up.

Personal, far less dramatic example: I had a relatively well paid job, for 12 months. It was fixed term and due to ongoing budget cuts, was cut. I was 3 months out of work, at the end of which a large chunk of my car decided to fall off. Luckily I'd just started a new (far less well paid job but one taken by necessity). Even then, by my calculation I was about 4 weeks away from having nothing left in savings once 3 months living off them and a very expensive car were taken into account.

[Deleted]

It is useful to hear these thoughts from others

[wiggymess]

Dec 21, 2016 15:00:42 GMT @parsley said:

Dec 21, 2016 14:56:37 GMT DuchessConstance said:

Presumably, like the many people who are in that situation in real life, they had a house and a solid income when she became pregnant 8 months or so earlier.

We don't need to discuss the problems with modern society on this forum

However in my own personal opinion people don't plan ahead and save

Before starting a family people should have contingency and a stable state

And look ahead a bit more

Things happen and if they lost their house and ended up like this in less than a year where were their savings and assets?

Perhaps this play might make people more cautious and thoughtful though

And that is a good thing

Most people are only thinking of day to day selfishly and can't see past their own nose



I would love to have loads of children and do lots of things which I realise aren't realistic for me

The play only showed the temporary housing as shameful and negative
They all behaved like prisoners as if they were there against their will
At least they had this option in the first place

Personally I find it a little disappointing that people still hold these opinions.
I know for a fact that I, along with a significant number of my friends, would never have been born if everyone believed they should have 'contingency and a stable state' before having children, and I wouldn't exactly describe my parents, nor those of my friends as 'thinking of day to day selfishly' or not seeing 'past their own nose' in their decision to start a family.
But wonderful to see that this is sparking insightful and thought provoking conversations on both sides, I think if this year has taught us anything it's that conversations MUST take place between people who disagree with each other.