3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 11, 2017 17:16:06 GMT
I really felt that the play lost something by not being a promenade production I presume that would be very difficult now because of security (this point may have already been made but I haven't read the other comments because I haven't seen it yet - I loved the Alan Clarke film from the 80s. It's just come out on BluRay/DVD and I have it but I've put off watching it again until I've seen this version. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Aug 12, 2017 10:26:27 GMT
I saw this around a week ago and have been struggling with what to say about it ever since.
My gut reaction was immense frustration - the play in its original form has been butchered with a lot of text and narrative lost to reach this incarnation. With a far greater emphasis on movement/sleekness and much less on text and grit. Thinking back now, I should have realised that was to be the case considering the type of work John Tiffany produces.
I found it slightly laughable that this production uses more actors than the original one however has far fewer characters (and it was still tricky to discern sometimes who was actually who).
It also seems to be the most heavily marketed production the Royal Court have produced for some time (if my social media feed is anything to go by), is it not selling at all well?
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 12, 2017 10:43:23 GMT
is it not selling at all well? There don't seem to be any sold out dates and there are still lots of good available seats - but then, I suppose it's not that appealing a play to a London/tourist audience in August, and there are no big names attached. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 10:51:14 GMT
It also seems to be the most heavily marketed production the Royal Court have produced for some time (if my social media feed is anything to go by), is it not selling at all well? Maybe the difference from marketing new plays at the Royal Court is that, very unusually at this theatre, this is a revival of a well-known play. So, many more people are likely to respond to the marketing - a much wider audience than the Royal Court regulars and the followers of new plays. And John Tiffany is a further marketing plus, with the Harry Potter recognition factor. So, there really must be the potential for this to completely sell out its limited run and it's well worth the Royal Court doing everything to maximise its audience. And some of the newcomers may well return to see future shows there, which would be an extra bonus for the Royal Court. Thursday matinee was pretty busy. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 12:29:23 GMT
Time was when working class voices were part of the Royal Court - Bond, Wesker - but it was never like Stratford East's embrace of the whole culture under Joan Littlewood, always remaining at an objective distance. I suppose the university expansion of the sixties changed things, as most working class writers were more able to get noticed through being in higher education, leading unmediated working class voices to dwindle but, occasionally, an untutored writer still popped up such as Cartwright or Andrea Dunbar. As such, I think Road, is no longer what the Court audience expect and that sheen of theatrical respectability which Tiffany brings to it here is counter productive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 12:48:10 GMT
Time was when working class voices were part of the Royal Court - Bond, Wesker - but it was never like Stratford East's embrace of the whole culture under Joan Littlewood, always remaining at an objective distance. I suppose the university expansion of the sixties changed things, as most working class writers were more able to get noticed through being in higher education, leading unmediated working class voices to dwindle but, occasionally, an untutored writer still popped up such as Cartwright or Andrea Dunbar. As such, I think Road, is no longer what the Court audience expect and that sheen of theatrical respectability which Tiffany brings to it here is counter productive. When Road was premiered, the only biographical information given by the Royal Court about Jim Cartwright was that he was an unemployed Bolton man. Which implied complete theatrical outsider status, as had earlier been the case with Andrea Dunbar, another writer championed by Max Stafford-Clark at the Royal Court. But in factJim Cartwright was an actor, trained at a drama school. This counters the outsider myth. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 13:49:20 GMT
Time was when working class voices were part of the Royal Court - Bond, Wesker - but it was never like Stratford East's embrace of the whole culture under Joan Littlewood, always remaining at an objective distance. I suppose the university expansion of the sixties changed things, as most working class writers were more able to get noticed through being in higher education, leading unmediated working class voices to dwindle but, occasionally, an untutored writer still popped up such as Cartwright or Andrea Dunbar. As such, I think Road, is no longer what the Court audience expect and that sheen of theatrical respectability which Tiffany brings to it here is counter productive. When Road was premiered, the only biographical information given by the Royal Court about Jim Cartwright was that he was an unemployed Bolton man. Which implied complete theatrical outsider status, as had earlier been the case with Andrea Dunbar, another writer championed by Max Stafford-Clark at the Royal Court. But in factJim Cartwright was an actor, trained at a drama school. This counters the outsider myth. That's the education expansion part. To get there from a council estate, having been to a secondary modern where, he's said of himself that he could 'barely write', by the time he left was your usual pathway to get into GSA and Central! That he was good at acting was a way out for a few like him, though. So, the lad done good. He's also been very active in trying to provide classes for those who are in a similar position to how he was, with his own drama studio. www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40705516 |
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Aug 13, 2017 20:29:56 GMT
I enjoyed this rather more than I thought I would. Having missed it before and only read some cursory information about it I was half-expecting a humourless two-hour rant telling me how awful I am for having the money to go to a theatre to be told how awful I am for having the money......etc.
It's not like that at all is it? Whilst the overarching theme is the waste of human lives caught up in unemployment, deprivation and meaninglessness this is more about human nature and how people react to such pressures. Incidentally, why do we have to define ourselves as what we do? Surely the ultimate ambition should be to find ourselves as persons not be defined by what pays for the bills. "I am a fireman"... you shouldn't be. You shuld be a man who likes this and does that and puts out fires so you can afford to do the things you enjoy.
The poetic language which is used at times is really effective and takes the play to a different level, elevating it from the prosaic drinking and bad sex which occupies much of its time. The two monologues highlighted in an earlier post are things of beauty. Liked the use of music and the staging too.
What brings the play down a notch is the endings in both acts. Too vague and wordy, especially the long bedroom scene (clever as it is technically) where the character is flailing around with ideas which he doesn't understand and cannot communicate.
Not having seen the original production but having read the playtext it seems to me that any aspirations towards innovative presentation have more or less been abandoned and this is done here as a straight play with some quirks. But it's a pretty good play and certainly worth its revival.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Aug 14, 2017 11:45:31 GMT
Have to admit it didn't do a lot for me. Hated the glass box - totally separated the audience from the characters. Loved many of the character scenes in act 1, and confused how totally the structure changed in act 2. Sound performances, but not what I expected in terms of emotional impact. I hoped for real anger and didn't feel it, alas. Yes, it felt very "staged" - nothing had any genuine impact. There's a lot of raw emotions within the play, it's a shame this production didn't bring it out. |
|
270 posts
|
Post by littlesally on Aug 14, 2017 17:18:09 GMT
Have to say I absolutely loved this. I liked the glass box as it emphasised the isolation, even in the middle of all that long life!
Performances superb all round. Much more humour than I'd expected too. And more than a few poignant moments.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 14, 2017 22:57:33 GMT
Just seen and really enjpyed ESP final scenes - will add more tmrw when I'm back aty keyboard
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by peelee on Aug 15, 2017 16:55:29 GMT
While not revived in the format in which it was first presented in the 1980s, this production of Road still has something to say about lives as lived then and now, and its chosen format illustrates this and emphasises that, as we meet and re-meet characters and unfolding situations on the night in question. It struck me also that as the London theatre Upstairs that first staged this play, the Royal Court has reminded theatregoers that the Court isn't just famous for the older legendary productions it staged in the 1950s and 1960s but can claim a string of memorable plays down the years since. For all its remit about new writing, and also young writers, there are old glories it can point to, and Road has been worth doing in a period when some its plays in the last so many years have been hit and miss. It's entitled to re-stage this play, and it may even have people seeking out the BBC film version made some years ago by the late, legendary director Alan Clarke.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Aug 20, 2017 16:18:47 GMT
Another occasion when my high hopes were dashed: I was so disappointed and fed up that I was quite angry by the interval. I couldn't fault the acting or production (and had never seen the play before so was unable to compare it with a promenade version), but imo it's not a play - just a succession of random characters babbling on about nothing in particular. At least I got a deal on the ticket but I still regretted the waste of time and money. And whilst others may advise holding on for the second half, there was no way I could tolerate any more of this; in fact I'd have left sooner had I been able to do so discreetly.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 20, 2017 17:33:12 GMT
I'm familiar with the play from the Alan Clarke TV film, and with the setting (I'm from Lancashire, and some of the characters were very recognisable) and I really enjoyed it. There were some strong, affecting performances - I didn't realise Michelle Fairley played three characters until I read the programme afterwards - and a great use of music. The only weak point for me was the bed scene - it went on too long and I wasn't sure what the premise was meant to be (a hunger strike bed-in?) and so it lost me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 9:51:02 GMT
Well. Someone loved Yerma with its plastic box. This one moves up and down though. Take that Piper.
It reminded me of one of those Jimmy McGovern TV dramas that they have on the BBC every now and again starring someone from The Royle Family and someone from Coronation Street.
Terrific cast though and what's lovely about it is that they really work as an ensemble and every actor gets a moment to shine. Special mention must go to Michelle Fairley for her wonderful seduction of a drunken soldier. Hilarious and heartbreaking at the flick of a switch.
It's also rather depressing how little things have changed since then.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 3, 2017 14:44:14 GMT
Special mention must go to Michelle Fairley for her wonderful seduction of a drunken soldier. Hilarious and heartbreaking at the flick of a switch. Fantastic scene, and I didn't realise it was her for a bit! |
|
