A Day By The Sea - Southwark Playhouse

[Deleted]

southwarkplayhouse.co.uk/southwark-playhouse/a-day-by-the-sea/

Sounds interesting. "What the Women Did" and "The Cutting of the Cloth" were great. N C Hunter is not a name I'm familiar with - this play was revived off-Broadway last year and was well received.

Two’s Company is delighted to return to Southwark Playhouse for the fourth production in four years: What The Women Did (2014), The Cutting of the Cloth (2015), The Fifth Column (2016) and now A Day by the Sea:



It is a fine day in May, 1953.



A work-obsessed diplomat based in Paris makes a rare visit to his mother, who lives at the beautiful family home in Dorset. He is disconcerted to find an old childhood friend also visiting with her children, her life now blighted by scandal. His mother, heartily sceptical about politicians meddling in foreign affairs, would like him to calm down and get married. A family picnic on the beach might be just the thing but even there a work colleague brings him news he had not expected to hear.



Do we always see the past through rose-tinted spectacles? If, after years dominated by his work, he can discover what really matters in life, can he get it? Can we? A Day by the Sea, hugely popular in its time, asks this very question.



N.C. Hunter the “English Chekhov” was swept aside, along with Coward and Rattigan, by the Angry Young Men in the 1950’s. Coward and Rattigan are now often performed, and Hunter’s humane and intelligent comedies are long overdue for rediscovery.

[showgirl]

When I received the Southwark Playhouse email I did indeed think this sounded very interesting - and promising. I do actually know the playwright's name but when I checked what he'd written, I didn't recognise any of the plays' names. However, being a little wary of revivals of once-popular works which seem to have fallen into obscurity, I'll wait for the early comments here - or reviews, if no-one else sees it first.

[harrietcraig]

I saw the off-Broadway production last year and liked it (didn't love it, but was glad to have seen it). This will obviously be a different production, but if anyone is interested in the reviews of the off-Broadway production, they're at Reviews of off-Broadway production

BTW, the Southwark Playhouse's website says the running time will be 150 minutes including interval, but it was close to three hours in New York.

[showgirl]

This would be interesting, harrietcraig, though the link doesn't seem to work at present. Definitely sounds like one for a matinee, though, so thank you for the timing info.

[harrietcraig]

Sorry about the link. Not sure what I did wrong, but I'll try just keying in the URL here so anyone who's interested can copy and paste it:

www.show-score.com/off-off-broadway-shows/a-day-by-the-sea

[showgirl]

First preview is tonight; PN Friday, though oddly, Southwark Playhouse seems to stick to the usual 7.30 pm start time instead of bringing it forward 30 mins for press night as other theatres do. Given harrietcraig's comments re the running time, the critics might have preferred to stick to convention. I'm still interested in principle and have earmarked a couple of possible matinee slots.

[MrBunbury]

I saw it last night and I really liked it. For being the first preview, everything seems to be working fine. I was out by 10,15.

[showgirl]

Thank you, MrBunbury - that's good enough for me, so I've booked while I can still get an aisle seat at a matinee. I notice that on the website the running time has been amended from 150 to 165 minutes, so sounds as though they expect it to reduce a little compared to when you saw it - unless they started late, which they often do.

[MrBunbury]

Oct 5, 2017 15:18:46 GMT showgirl said:

Thank you, MrBunbury - that's good enough for me, so I've booked while I can still get an aisle seat at a matinee. I notice that on the website the running time has been amended from 150 to 165 minutes, so sounds as though they expect it to reduce a little compared to when you saw it - unless they started late, which they often do.

They were maybe 6-7 minutes late but I am sure they will tighten the production a bit as it goes along.

[showgirl]

A 3-star review - but actually sounding worse - from Reviewsgate.

[lonlad]

Saw it yesterday matinee. 3 stars is about right. Some awfully naff acting (and a few standout perfs which, happily, include the main role - the one taken by Gielgud back in the day.)

[Deleted]

This was quite good but not a major rediscovery. Wonder whether the description of Hunter as the "English Chekhov" in the publicity for this is just based on this play which is very much like the contemporary-set Chekhov plays "in a version by ..." we tend to get these days. (we get the alcoholic Doctor who lives with the family, the mother who longs for a return to the big city, people stuck in an isolated big house, etc).

Set was good with a fairly slick scene change for the space.

It's very long and could have done with some judicious editing.

[dani]

Oct 8, 2017 3:55:03 GMT showgirl said:

A 3-star review - but actually sounding worse - from Reviewsgate.

I just looked it up. "Although the play defies resuscitation, as an example of what star casting in the 1950s West End could achieve in the way of persuading audiences to admire a dreary pretentious Chekhov-lite tale it is well worth catching." This is complete gibberish. 

[peelee]

I haven't seen this play, but I do like the venue. It's basic and friendly, has staged some very worthwhile things, like The Cutting of the Cloth and the play about Orson Welles and Vivien Leigh. And it's just so good to have a theatre like that so close to Elephant & Castle tube and bus routes, close enough for London-vicinity theatregoers to keep an eye on.

[showgirl]

That said, the theatre has today tweeted a 4-star review from the Express - I didn't know they even reviewed theatre but I recognise the reviewer's name.

[dani]

Oct 15, 2017 17:22:37 GMT showgirl said:

That said, the theatre has today tweeted a 4-star review from the Express - I didn't know they even reviewed theatre but I recognise the reviewer's name.

That tweet draws unfortunate attention to the reviewer's 1-star drubbing of Young Frankenstein. 

[showgirl]

I enjoyed this yesterday despite its length and having inveighed elsewhere on this board about meandering plays which don't seem to be going anywhere, causing me to leave at the interval.

In this case I was aware of the running time and well-prepared by Libby Purves's comments:

"So yes, at first it could feel slow. But tough directors are right to eschew panicky cutting, and make us all damn well sit still as we would have in 1953, and let the characters grow into reality at their own pace. It is rewarding."

There was some rather clumsy and repeated exposition - highlighting how long it had been since various characters had last seen each other -which could have been dispensed with and although the day in question was at least 24 hours long as one turned into the next, the costume changes were minimal or non-existent, which was a little confusing, but that was probably due to financial constraints. Not a full house but not far off and the matinee audience received this well.