|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 7:32:21 GMT
Angels in America and Cursed Child were both reviewed as one single long play, so I expect The Inheritance will be treated the same. Having checked the schedule and seen that it's Part 2 tonight, I presume "press night" in this case is less short-hand for "the night when the critics will watch the entire thing ready to unleash their thoughts in the morning" and more "for anyone who cares, the reviews embargo will be lifted after tonight's performance".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 7:44:05 GMT
Angels in America and Cursed Child were both reviewed as one single long play, so I expect The Inheritance will be treated the same. Having checked the schedule and seen that it's Part 2 tonight, I presume "press night" in this case is less short-hand for "the night when the critics will watch the entire thing ready to unleash their thoughts in the morning" and more "for anyone who cares, the reviews embargo will be lifted after tonight's performance". Ah. I did not cross reference. Thank you! |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 27, 2018 9:46:49 GMT
Hopefully interesting - I enjoyed it, but was uneasy with some aspects and I see on social media there are already some comments about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 11:36:45 GMT
I have to say, though, am very uncomfortable with the erasure of women in a story that's supposed to be about contemporary America and based on a novel centred around female protagonists. Even Wilcoxes' offspring are here presented just as two heterosexual men - the daughter has been erased. It is a bit like those Ikea catalogues for the Middle East market - lovely houses but with no women, no mothers, no daughters, just fathers and sons. I have not seen The Inheritance yet, but it must be incredibly difficult for writers these days. I worry that censuring individual pieces of art for not including an even distribution of society as we see it may result in writers creating tick-box work that will end up feeling rather homogenised and streaky. I think theatres need to be diverse in terms of representation; they should be looking to programme a variety of work that is inclusive to audience everywhere. Not at individual pieces will be able to do that in and of themselves, and I don't think they should face criticism for that. |
|
|
|
Post by firefingers on Mar 27, 2018 12:30:57 GMT
Think the website is wrong, the show's press is tomorrow, with reviewers coming to both a matinee of part 1 and then part 2 in the evening. Though if they were unavailable they may have come on a previous performance.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 27, 2018 12:33:01 GMT
not including an even distribution of society I think in this case it's particularly striking because it's based on a female-centred book but entirely recast with men, apart from one star who is in there because she's a link to the 1992 movie the playwright evidently fell in love with. The play includes heterosexual male characters - Wilcox's sons - but erases his daughter. And all the characters/actors are very easy on the eye: the main speaking roles are buff white men, and the supporting cast are all of a similar bodytype. Fair enough if you are wanting a fanfic fantasy, but it makes the play feel more like it exists in a narrow bubble rather than being the 'state of the nation' or timely social commentary that the publicity suggests it wants to be. |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2018 12:40:54 GMT
I have to say, though, am very uncomfortable with the erasure of women in a story that's supposed to be about contemporary America and based on a novel centred around female protagonists. Even Wilcoxes' offspring are here presented just as two heterosexual men - the daughter has been erased. It is a bit like those Ikea catalogues for the Middle East market - lovely houses but with no women, no mothers, no daughters, just fathers and sons. I have not seen The Inheritance yet, but it must be incredibly difficult for writers these days. I worry that censuring individual pieces of art for not including an even distribution of society as we see it may result in writers creating tick-box work that will end up feeling rather homogenised and streaky. I think theatres need to be diverse in terms of representation; they should be looking to programme a variety of work that is inclusive to audience everywhere. Not at individual pieces will be able to do that in and of themselves, and I don't think they should face criticism for that. I've been discussing this aspect of things a lot with the people I know who've seen it. None of us really found it a problem, but I worry that's because we're all relatively young gay men, and that's entirely who populates the character list of this play, and maybe we were blind to the problem that way. Ultimately I feel that it's not a problem, fundamentally it's a play supposedly written by and centrally concerning gay guys, and the fact that it largely just has those characters is a reflection of it's focus, not an exclusion or ignorance of other types of people. Nobody complained about the lack of a female, or a caucasian character in Brothers Size, for example - it isn't needed. It's point and intent were clear. This is a lot longer so doesn't have the excuse of a lean script, but still tries to write a grand treatise on male American homosexuality, and it does that really just using characters of that persuasion. I don't think I felt the want of loads of women in the show, and I don't think morally there's any reason to ramrod them into it, purely in the name of inclusivity. It's purely opinion though, I'm sure people quite rightly felt very differently. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 12:52:14 GMT
I have to say, though, am very uncomfortable with the erasure of women in a story that's supposed to be about contemporary America and based on a novel centred around female protagonists. Even Wilcoxes' offspring are here presented just as two heterosexual men - the daughter has been erased. It is a bit like those Ikea catalogues for the Middle East market - lovely houses but with no women, no mothers, no daughters, just fathers and sons. I have not seen The Inheritance yet, but it must be incredibly difficult for writers these days. I worry that censuring individual pieces of art for not including an even distribution of society as we see it may result in writers creating tick-box work that will end up feeling rather homogenised and streaky. I think theatres need to be diverse in terms of representation; they should be looking to programme a variety of work that is inclusive to audience everywhere. Not at individual pieces will be able to do that in and of themselves, and I don't think they should face criticism for that. Well said. My husband criticised the play for erasing the women who died of AIDS but I just put it down to him over-compensating as a feminist white man. He holds other white men to a higher standard, yetI viewed it as a piece of gay male theatre and that it was not telling the story of women who died of AIDS (or African men for that matter.) I saw Art at the Old Vic last year and don’t remember people complaining that it was just about straight white men. Why should theatre (art, TV, all culture, essentially) from people who are not “the default” be held to this higher standard of representation? Huge applause for the idea that theatres need to think programmatically about inclusion. That’s probably the right level. Also, a theatre-goers we need to support a range of voices. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 12:53:37 GMT
I'm just not sure that gay cis men are under-represented enough in theatre to play the "we want to hear stories from lots of *different* groups and sometimes that means we'll exclude groups who are better-represented!" card. I have yet to see The Inheritance, but although I will be watching it for what it is, I can't ignore what it isn't. Contrary to rumour, I am only human after all.
(I do think it's bold to claim it's about the gay male New York experience, like New York is renowned for its lack of women and gay men don't have mothers, sisters, female friends, co-workers, employers, employees, baristas, doctors, etc, but whatevs. I don't know, maybe Matthew Lopez manages to live quite successfully in New York without ever encountering any women other than his aunt Priscilla Lopez, in which case I'll quite happily admit to being uncharitable in my disappointment.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 12:58:48 GMT
I saw Art at the Old Vic last year and don’t remember people complaining that it was just about straight white men. Why should theatre (art, TV, all culture, essentially) from people who are not “the default” be held to this higher standard of representation? I saw Art at the Old Vic last year, and I was not shy about complaining how dull I found these dull straight white middle-class men and their dull straight white middle-class problems. I honestly hated every single character and although the play was entertaining enough I'm glad we've moved past that period where it was a staple of the West End and held up as an example of great theatre. If that helps.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 12:59:58 GMT
I'm just not sure that gay cis men are under-represented enough in theatre to play the "we want to hear stories from lots of different groups!" card. Interesting point. I’m going to think about this more, but are cis gay men under-represented as writers and producers? I don’t have the data to fashion a nuanced arguement, but are they not more likely performers than commissioners and creators? Does that mean that they are not likely in a position of power? (I may not fully agree with my own thesis. I am going to eat this hot cross bun and think about it more.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 13:03:14 GMT
Hot cross buns are the best! (Also just a heads up that I edited that post to try and make myself a little clearer, if anyone's wondering why my quoted words are different. Definitely not to try and mislead or anything.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 13:10:47 GMT
Hot cross buns are the best! (Also just a heads up that I edited that post to try and make myself a little clearer, if anyone's wondering why my quoted words are different. Definitely not to try and mislead or anything. ) There’s a bakery in N1 (Pophams) doing a hot cross croissant. If you live anywhere nearby, I would strongly recommend you give them a try. Today is “just” an Ottolenghi HXB, which is currently in pole position for “Best Bun of the Year”. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 14:54:50 GMT
I'm just not sure that gay cis men are under-represented enough in theatre to play the "we want to hear stories from lots of different groups!" card. Interesting point. I’m going to think about this more, but are cis gay men under-represented as writers and producers? I don’t have the data to fashion a nuanced arguement, but are they not more likely performers than commissioners and creators? Does that mean that they are not likely in a position of power? (I may not fully agree with my own thesis. I am going to eat this hot cross bun and think about it more.) I don't have any hard data to back it up, but anecdotally I find I can barely swing a cat in theatre without hitting a cis gay man. I would probably hazard a guess that the top tier are still likely white straight men, with a handful of women thrown in. But we aren't short on white gay men making decisions in theatre that's for sure. Back to the play and what it does or doesn't represent. It's always been a problem in "Gay Theatre" and "Aids Theatre" that the big plays (ie the ones with critical and commercial attention) have skewed towards, white cis gay men. Partly, for the early plays I don't really blame a sense of 'writing from the heart' about what was happening to you, in your radius. Many of these were passion political pieces. And while we could cry 'why didn't you have black friends or women friends you could write about' that's not very helpful. For anything written today, and I hold myself to account on this as well when working on creative and academic work on the subject, it is remiss to focus soley on that group, especially if trying to write a kind of 'contemporary response'. But as @baemax says, he maybe Lopez does indeed live his life in a bubble that only the like of Vanessa Redgrave can penetrate?! |
|
|
|
Post by raiseitup on Mar 29, 2018 10:57:13 GMT
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Mar 29, 2018 11:14:36 GMT
Blindly booked the Double Day on the 16th May, from the reviews loloks as it may have been one of my better decisions.
Big fan of “box set’ days, only concern is that in the past have found the Young Vic seats extremely uncomfortable.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 29, 2018 11:20:17 GMT
Interesting point. I’m going to think about this more, but are cis gay men under-represented as writers and producers? I don’t have the data to fashion a nuanced arguement, but are they not more likely performers than commissioners and creators? Does that mean that they are not likely in a position of power? (I may not fully agree with my own thesis. I am going to eat this hot cross bun and think about it more.) I don't have any hard data to back it up, but anecdotally I find I can barely swing a cat in theatre without hitting a cis gay man. I would probably hazard a guess that the top tier are still likely white straight men, with a handful of women thrown in. But we aren't short on white gay men making decisions in theatre that's for sure. At one point it did seem like half the artistic directors of major theatres in London were cis gay men! Theatre has long been noted as a particularly gay-male-friendly industry - which became self-perpetuating in times when gay men were under siege from wider society, as the theatre community provided acceptance, support and understanding not found elsewhere. That is surely partly why there's such a wealth of AIDS plays, don't you think? People were not getting the opportunity to tell those stories in other mediums, for the most part. There's not nearly the same wealth of theatre about the rest of the LGBT community - but that will change, with time, I'm sure. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 29, 2018 11:27:51 GMT
Young Vic seats extremely uncomfortable. I thought they were fine/good. Btw, I saw it in preview and the second break in part 2 was only 5 mins. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 12:12:56 GMT
Blindly booked the Double Day on the 16th May, from the reviews loloks as it may have been one of my better decisions. Big fan of “box set’ days, only concern is that in the past have found the Young Vic seats extremely uncomfortable. I have just recovered from over a week of codeine, naproxen and agony after part two of the Inheritance. Wrap up, because I think it was a combination of cold and sitting at that (and then two more nights at the theatre. So not 100% of the blame is on the Young Vic.) |
|
4,986 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 29, 2018 12:19:59 GMT
Thought this would have transferred to the Playhouse along with Fun House, like The Jungle but went with ‘Tony Kushner’.
Shame give it 3 months and I be more than willing to do another 7 hour stint through this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 13:20:10 GMT
I have just recovered from over a week of codeine, naproxen and agony after part two of the Inheritance. Wrap up, because I think it was a combination of cold and sitting at that (and then two more nights at the theatre. So not 100% of the blame is on the Young Vic.) Oh I just love codeine. It's one of my favourite prescription drugs. I sailed through a broken rib on codeine once and I've never looked back. It's especially nice with a Martini. With or without a broken rib. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 15:23:04 GMT
I have just recovered from over a week of codeine, naproxen and agony after part two of the Inheritance. Wrap up, because I think it was a combination of cold and sitting at that (and then two more nights at the theatre. So not 100% of the blame is on the Young Vic.) Oh I just love codeine. It's one of my favourite prescription drugs. I sailed through a broken rib on codeine once and I've never looked back. It's especially nice with a Martini. With or without a broken rib. Lucky you. It made me *completely mental* and the constipation means I now have even-worse-than-in-pregnancy haemorrhoids. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 15:38:14 GMT
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 29, 2018 17:31:59 GMT
Just read that myself. Yes, very glad I took a punt on it and booked a double-header when tickets went on sale. I'm going in a couple of weeks and I'm really looking forward to it. |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Mar 29, 2018 17:32:16 GMT
I wouldn't have been happy if I'd read that review before seeing it, it gives away a few things I'd rather not have known. The bit in the Billington review about Paul Hilton is spot on though, I'm going to support an Olivier nomination for him as actor in a supporting role. |
|
)
