|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 13:55:19 GMT
Again
The Twitter comments on this
Are positive
I think there is a trend emerging
People who use Twitter frequently
Are easily pleased
And are able to express their opinions in a limited way
|
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 21, 2018 14:02:23 GMT
IMO it's because people mostly use Twitter under their real names. Apart from trolls and suchlike but I guess Twitter trolls generally take little interest in surrealist theatre. I use Twitter frequently and I wouldn't tweet negatively about a play (I wouldn't post about this play under my real name).
I notice they haven't even sold out press night.
Some whoops last night at curtain call so at best they can hope for a Marmite production. Unless friends of cast?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 14:15:28 GMT
IMO it's because people mostly use Twitter under their real names. Apart from trolls and suchlike but I guess Twitter trolls generally take little interest in surrealist theatre. I use Twitter frequently and I wouldn't tweet negatively about a play (I wouldn't post about this play under my real name). I notice they haven't even sold out press night. Some whoops last night at curtain call so at best they can hope for a Marmite production. Unless friends of cast? God Just look at what some people are happy to eat And the clothing they are happy to wear Is it any wonder They enjoy sh*tty shows? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 14:25:36 GMT
IMO it's because people mostly use Twitter under their real names. Apart from trolls and suchlike but I guess Twitter trolls generally take little interest in surrealist theatre. I use Twitter frequently and I wouldn't tweet negatively about a play (I wouldn't post about this play under my real name). I notice they haven't even sold out press night. Some whoops last night at curtain call so at best they can hope for a Marmite production. Unless friends of cast? God Just look at what some people are happy to eat And the clothing they are happy to wear Is it any wonder They enjoy sh*tty shows? Or maybe people just have different tastes In shows they see and we should respect people have different opinions (also its easy sitting behind a screen name spewing hate and comments no one takes seriously) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 14:28:48 GMT
God Just look at what some people are happy to eat And the clothing they are happy to wear Is it any wonder They enjoy sh*tty shows? Or maybe people just have different tastes In shows they see and we should respect people have different opinions (also its easy sitting behind a screen name spewing hate and comments no one takes seriously) This is likely how people with bad taste Reconcile and justify things to themselves I am sure Will be interested to see the press reviews for this |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 14:37:14 GMT
Or maybe people just have different tastes In shows they see and we should respect people have different opinions (also its easy sitting behind a screen name spewing hate and comments no one takes seriously) This is likely how people with bad taste Reconcile and justify things to themselves I am sure Will be interested to see the press reviews for this I don’t want to start an argument but just because it’s a show that some people have disliked a lot, it shouldnt make the people who have liked feel stupid and you shouldn’t shame them for what they wear or are like a as people, the wonderful thing about theatre or any art form is that we all interpret it and review it differently and should just respect other people views and not spew our own ones as being right.Didn’t your mother ever teach you that maybe if you don’t have anything nice to say Don’t say anything at all. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 21, 2018 15:34:25 GMT
I watched this last night. It was comfortably the worst piece of theatre I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
...but did you LIKE it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 15:35:08 GMT
My friend saw this on Thursday Her comments follow below And based on these I didn’t attend “ Don’t waste your time. Get a refund. No themes. No story. Supposed to be absurdist. Was panto. Best bit was that there was no interval. Glorious to be out at 915. And I liked the red death bridge. I thought it was terrible but I can never judge what other people think of plays / films. Sometime people like stuff I think is objectively bad I told u to go see the play. It is sh*t. But at least you would have seen for yourself it was sh*t and why u thought it was sh*t “ Of course Are her comments meaningless As I have posted them on here? Perhaps if I post the same comments on twitter They become true 🤣🤣🤣 The sort of tweet I’d move past quickly, it doesn’t give an idea of what the production is (visually, thematically etc.) just their own feelings. The comment about panto is potentially interesting but, out of the context of other comments, it leads to nothing. As here, an jndividual post can be as misleading as an individual tweet, facebook post or whatever. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 21, 2018 15:36:49 GMT
Aren’t people sick Of seeing all this sh*t theatre??? Mostly I'm sick of seeing people whine about the supposed failures of shows they haven't bothered to see themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 15:58:01 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought
Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 16:04:20 GMT
Oh this all sounds smashing. I'm not going for another couple of weeks. I do hope they don't tinker around with it and start making it good by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 21, 2018 16:33:28 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!) This particular play was a recent success in the studio at Bath with Alun Armstrong. It is also the sort of classic revival the NT Should be doing. However putting it in the Olivier with an inept director creates insurmountable problems. It should be in the Dorfman but their arbitrary policy of only putting new plays in there means that isn’t allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 16:45:35 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!) I have seen a couple of supposedly “experimental” plays this week and it seems to me that theatres need to think about what it really means to them. There has to be substance behind experiment, some kind of philosophical underpinning. Some of the plays I have seen this year are insubstantial because the author just seems to be jumping on the experimental bandwagon. When I attend theatres I am sometimes aware of a subtext that seems to state that naturalism is a patriarchal form and that experimental work is radical/feminist etc; or that naturalism is simplistic and experiment is complex - an argument I find simplistic. My sense is that after plays that tell us there’s no point/everything should be blown up/dramaturgically anything goes/look at us aren’t we all so clever? audiences long for reflection, for thought, poetry and for connection. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 17:34:12 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!) I have seen a couple of supposedly “experimental” plays this week and it seems to me that theatres need to think about what it really means to them. There has to be substance behind experiment, some kind of philosophical underpinning. Some of the plays I have seen this year are insubstantial because the author just seems to be jumping on the experimental bandwagon. When I attend theatres I am sometimes aware of a subtext that seems to state that naturalism is a patriarchal form and that experimental work is radical/feminist etc; or that naturalism is simplistic and experiment is complex - an argument I find simplistic. My sense is that after plays that tell us there’s no point/everything should be blown up/dramaturgically anything goes/look at us aren’t we all so clever? audiences long for reflection, for thought, poetry and for connection. Pity? I don’t think it’s being advertised as in any way experimental thiugh. If that’s one, what was the other one? Form, and experimentation with it, is most definitely what audiences are challenged by. The Writer, which I loved, did so with intelligence and meaning. The Octoroon, which I only caught recently and have not yet written about, was also dazzling in its playing with form, I thought. Probably my two highlights of the year so far. Naturalism isn’t patriarchal although feminist and BAME writing has often fallen down, for me, because it stuck to the familiar tropes of realism. The Writer and The Octoroon were both so successful, I thought, because they critiqued existing styles within a framework of deconstructing them. The world is in chaos and what exists may well need ‘blowing up’, usually theatre follows what happens in the world. Expressionism reacting to the carnage and nightmare in the early twentieth century, for example, absurdism to the atom bomb and its destruction. This play tells of the disintegration of society, isn’t that what many people find we are living through? I imagine that is the reason here. We do need new forms, always, and realism can only reflect a relatively narrow range of responses. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jul 21, 2018 18:35:55 GMT
Did anyone see The Chairs with Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan? Apart from Godot it’s the last absurdist success I can remember in the West End, must be twenty years ago. Rhinoceros is good but difficult to stage well for obvious reasons. Whenever we get a classic absurdist or expressionist play nowadays I see people slagging off the writing, do the plays not mean anything today? Are we too used to realism? Can actors act them? I thought Machinal was let down by some pedestrian acting, for example, it needs more extremes, greater caricatures, at times it felt like I was watching Ibsen (for me, that’s not a good thing!)
The Royal Court staged Rhinoceros about ten years ago - starring Benedict Cumberbatch, no less. I remember it as working well. The problem with the Theatre of the Absurd right now is that the metaphor is no match for reality. What could be more absurd than Trump?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 18:46:53 GMT
I wandered into this thread as I was over on the NT website contemplating booking it. As ever a delight to find among the genuine commentary and discussion, the idea that people liking a production or not is a stamp of their intelligence (or let's face, the underlying commentary: class).
So I guess a thick old working class gal like me would love it then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:11:16 GMT
Aren’t people sick Of seeing all this sh*t theatre??? Mostly I'm sick of seeing people whine about the supposed failures of shows they haven't bothered to see themselves. Okay to address this point I went this evening And have just left after 30 mins Usually the idea and concept and smell of excrement is enough That I know to avoid it But today I went ahead tasted it to prove a point Doesn’t taste good The lesson for me is that my friend is right And I will trust her judgment For those who are skeptical And need to taste it first Go ahead |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 21, 2018 19:23:42 GMT
I didn't book for this - and don't plan to.
Bad comments aside - I was taken to see a production of it in French when I was a university. Grim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:35:12 GMT
I have seen a couple of supposedly “experimental” plays this week and it seems to me that theatres need to think about what it really means to them. There has to be substance behind experiment, some kind of philosophical underpinning. Some of the plays I have seen this year are insubstantial because the author just seems to be jumping on the experimental bandwagon. When I attend theatres I am sometimes aware of a subtext that seems to state that naturalism is a patriarchal form and that experimental work is radical/feminist etc; or that naturalism is simplistic and experiment is complex - an argument I find simplistic. My sense is that after plays that tell us there’s no point/everything should be blown up/dramaturgically anything goes/look at us aren’t we all so clever? audiences long for reflection, for thought, poetry and for connection. Pity? I don’t think it’s being advertised as in any way experimental thiugh. If that’s one, what was the other one? Form, and experimentation with it, is most definitely what audiences are challenged by. The Writer, which I loved, did so with intelligence and meaning. The Octoroon, which I only caught recently and have not yet written about, was also dazzling in its playing with form, I thought. Probably my two highlights of the year so far. Naturalism isn’t patriarchal although feminist and BAME writing has often fallen down, for me, because it stuck to the familiar tropes of realism. The Writer and The Octoroon were both so successful, I thought, because they critiqued existing styles within a framework of deconstructing them. The world is in chaos and what exists may well need ‘blowing up’, usually theatre follows what happens in the world. Expressionism reacting to the carnage and nightmare in the early twentieth century, for example, absurdism to the atom bomb and its destruction. This play tells of the disintegration of society, isn’t that what many people find we are living through? I imagine that is the reason here. We do need new forms, always, and realism can only reflect a relatively narrow range of responses. [br The two plays you’ve chosen are for me good examples of experimental work that is underpinned by solid ideas - whether you agree with them or not or liked the plays or not. I have seen quite a lot this week but I don’t feel I have to answer to you about my theatre going. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 19:57:16 GMT
Mostly I'm sick of seeing people whine about the supposed failures of shows they haven't bothered to see themselves. Usually the idea and concept and smell of excrement is enough That I know to avoid it But today I went ahead tasted it to prove a point Doesn’t taste good You tasted it? OMGosh, @parsley is the living, breathing reincarnation of the late, great Divine back on earth to guide us in the excesses of bad taste. Who'd have thought it? You think you're a man but you're only a boy... |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 21, 2018 20:11:51 GMT
But today I went ahead tasted it to prove a point You want to prove a point? Stay until the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 20:41:30 GMT
Pity? I don’t think it’s being advertised as in any way experimental thiugh. If that’s one, what was the other one? Form, and experimentation with it, is most definitely what audiences are challenged by. The Writer, which I loved, did so with intelligence and meaning. The Octoroon, which I only caught recently and have not yet written about, was also dazzling in its playing with form, I thought. Probably my two highlights of the year so far. Naturalism isn’t patriarchal although feminist and BAME writing has often fallen down, for me, because it stuck to the familiar tropes of realism. The Writer and The Octoroon were both so successful, I thought, because they critiqued existing styles within a framework of deconstructing them. The world is in chaos and what exists may well need ‘blowing up’, usually theatre follows what happens in the world. Expressionism reacting to the carnage and nightmare in the early twentieth century, for example, absurdism to the atom bomb and its destruction. This play tells of the disintegration of society, isn’t that what many people find we are living through? I imagine that is the reason here. We do need new forms, always, and realism can only reflect a relatively narrow range of responses. [br The two plays you’ve chosen are for me good examples of experimental work that is underpinned by solid ideas - whether you agree with them or not or liked the plays or not. I have seen quite a lot this week but I don’t feel I have to answer to you about my theatre going. Why so defensive? I was just interested in what you’d seen (last week I saw The Octoroon, Machinal, Fun Home and Heathers, this week it’s The Lehman Trilogy, Allelujah and Home, I’m Darling. Hopefully I’ll get around to writing about a few of them some time soon). Ryan, how about a stage version of Pink Flamingos? Great for a family night out. |
|
527 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jul 23, 2018 21:09:00 GMT
Saw this tonight, 2/5 stars
Particularly funny at the beginning, that faded away fast as the play went on.
Very well acted (as NT productions usually are) and philosophical parts of the dialogue were enjoyable.
But generally the play didn't make much sense, the world building just wasn't there!
Despite being only 1 hour 40 mins it did drag and feel quite long.
|
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jul 23, 2018 23:53:11 GMT
I've been thinking more about this, having read the past few pages.
I love avant garde and absurdist or surrealist theatre. I adored the Writer, an Octoroon, Pomona, and going back a bit plays like Rhinoceros, Marat/Sade, and certainly Waiting for Godot. Some of my favourite plays are considered 'theatre of the absurd' classics.
The problem with this production is that it didn't feel especially absurdist or avant garde. You could cut about ten minutes and turn it into a straight drama about a patriarch of a family being told he's terminally ill and working through the stages of grief. It doesn't work as a drama because the characters were so weakly drawn you're not invested in them, but it doesn't work as an absurdist piece because those elements are so underplayed. It's mainly an hour and a half of a guy wailing that he's going to die.
Rhys' spitting power though, wow.
|
|
5,801 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 24, 2018 8:17:17 GMT
Why does the NT have an R in front on this thread? They dropped that years ago didn’t they?
|
|
