The Passing Of The Third Floor Back(Finborough Theatre)

[jason71]

Is anybody planning on seeing the above production? I thought that it sounded quite interesting. This will be my first visit to the Finborough.

[Jan]

Yes I will see it. These Finborough rediscoveries normally serve to show why they disappeared in the first place so they are interesting rather than outstanding. The theme of this one is repeated in several plays from that era.

[stefy69]

There is an excellent 1930's British film of this starring the great Conrad Veidt, well worth seeking out if you've never seen it....

[Dawnstar]

I looked up the piece only a couple of weeks ago, after reading an article on the original star Johnston Forbes-Robertson. It's quite a conincidence to then find out it's being revived for the first time in decades. I'll definintely think about seeing it.

[Jan]

This is interesting and quite good fun. It was a massive hit in London in 1908 and on Broadway in 1910 but if you hadn’t known that you might place it 40 years earlier as a piece of preachy Victorian sentimentality with a bit of a nod to melodrama. It is startling that it could be successful a generation after Ibsen had changed everything and initiated the modern theatrical era. It is by Jerome K Jerome and so unusually some of the original jokes still work. It is well-acted by a cast of 12. It runs just over 2hrs which is just about right.

[orchidman]

I thought Act Two outstayed its welcome but I enjoyed it more than the Times and Telegraph reviewers. It's didactic and wouldn't play in a large theatre but in the atmospheric Finborough with a good set and lighting, and an elegant harp accompaniment, I thought it was quite charming. Alexander Knox excellent in the pivotal role.

[Deleted]

Have not seen this but just read the Claire Allfree review in The Telegraph, and it has really annoyed me.

Her piece is not a review of the play or the production but a feature piece about other recent revivals of rediscovered plays by celebrated writers. If a critic wants to write a feature piece then so be it, but don't shoehorn it into a review of a play.

[Deleted]

In a general newspaper, many more people will read a review than a feature article on a very obscure topic. So, this is quite a clever way to publish a feature article! The production must be glad that there's not any additional review content in the piece - it's clear that very little of it would have encouraged anyone to buy a ticket.

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2017 11:46:18 GMT @honouredguest said:

In a general newspaper, many more people will read a review than a feature article on a very obscure topic. So, this is quite a clever way to publish a feature article! The production must be glad that there's not any additional review content in the piece - it's clear that very little of it would have encouraged anyone to buy a ticket.

The review covers almost nothing about the play/production - about its content, its style, its structure - and when I read a review of a play it is chiefly because I am interested in these things being covered.

I have been to see plays that had less than flattering reviews because I was interested in the subject matter, and the review still revealed that to me (after wading through the criticism). Surely we all understand that just because someone else (professional critic or not) didn't like something doesn't mean we won't; being a member of this board bears that out rather well I think.

[Jan]

I saw the review too - surprising to find it in the Telegraph which tends to celebrate the archaic. Her point seems to be that this play is unacceptable because it is "sanctimonius" (which it is) which ignores the fact that many new plays are also sanctimonious and simply promote a moral superiority based on liberal rather than Christian values. She herself demonstrates the trait by praising only the revival of a forgotten play which was "an early feminist theatrical polemic against the institution of marriage". Thus she implies there is only value in reviving plays which conform to our current mores, whereas in my view there is interest in reviving plays which do not so we can see how things have changed.

I am surprised she detects no hint of sermonising in "Three Men In A Boat" - it suggests to me she hasn't actually read it. Also there is a terrible howler where she describes Winnie the Pooh as "a little yellow bear who has a very small brain" whereas he is in fact "a bear of very little brain" which is different.

2* - Must try harder


Oh, just while I remember, next year is the 150th anniversary of the Finborough building and they are staging a season of "the best plays of the year 1868" - we had a discussion some time ago about how the early and mid-Victorian era had hardly any plays we were familiar with so this season will be interesting if only to indicate why that is. 

[Deleted]

Michael Billington covers this and two other obscure revivals in one feature, with a hint of review: www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/dec/05/stage-london-jerome-k-jerome-jm-barrie-finborough

[joem]

I have read enough to convince me it is my duty to go and see this.

[joem]

Duty duly done. Passes the time without ever threatening to grip. The play is most definitely of its time - it has shades of An Inspector Calls - but it isn't bad. The melodramatic bits are played fairly straight which helps.

Nicely staged, well acted. No complaints really. You can see why it was revived but you can also see why it was forgotten but kudos to the Finborough for staging this type of play.