|
|
Post by audrey on Apr 21, 2018 21:47:20 GMT
Just back from the first preview and really enjoyed this . Beautifully written and brilliant performances from everyone. A fantastic look at identity, egos , narcissism, sexism and exploitation in the music industry and so relevant in the time of #metoo and #timesup. Bernard (the music producer played by Ben Chaplin ) is a great character - have definitely worked with a few men just like him. Quite a few standing ovations and a big cheer went up when Cat (Seana Kerslake) decided she'd had enough.
|
|
3,565 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 22, 2018 5:21:28 GMT
Very happy to read your comments, audrey, as I'm seeing this soon. Could you give an approximate running time, please? I risked an evening performance so am really hoping it's not a very long play and there's no info about this on the Old Vic site yet. |
|
|
|
Post by audrey on Apr 22, 2018 9:30:23 GMT
Its a perfect length - 2 hours and 5 minutes with a 20 minute interval - just 45 minutes in the second half. .
|
|
3,565 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 22, 2018 10:08:49 GMT
Great, thank you, Audrey. I have a longer matinee first so that's a good balance.
|
|
677 posts
|
Post by westendcub on Apr 23, 2018 21:05:35 GMT
I really enjoyed this play this evening, took me a little while to fully engage but this is well written & huge power play at full force & it’s Act 2 is strong & direct.
Performances are excellent & liked the set, I was front row on dress circle so view was great (been on stage & stalls at Old Vic). I was on PWC ticket (‘A Monster Calls’ next on my radar!).
I think the play will divide some critics, it doesn’t really resolve anything (but personally I think it’s the stronger piece for it, giving it a reality that not everything concludes & events in life can change people or not all) & it’s very topical (made me think of the case of singer Keisha).
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 23, 2018 22:24:20 GMT
Three intricately woven melodies opposed and combined to build a complex harmonic composition. Each counterpoint is perfectly performed with exceptional timing, Ben Chaplin is magnetic as Bernard the producer as he exploits all around him to feed his narcissism and self worth, the scene at the Novello’s epitomises this in the child like way he fights to take back control.
The final suspended chord is left unresolved, as long as people crave Celebrity, the Bernards will always find an unlimited supply of Cat’s to devour, the challenge will be/is to break this cycle.
I particularly enjoyed the music composition references, the construction of the piece is Bach like in the way the three counterpoints are intertwined both vertically and horizontally making the whole so much more than it’s constituent parts.
The Old Vic continues to excel in it’s 200th year, will definitely be catching A Monster Calls, what initially looked a weak season is proving to be the surprise of 2018.
|
|
1,281 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Apr 23, 2018 22:50:20 GMT
I was there today also. This was entertaining enough for me. I wasn't engaged at the very beginning and took me a while to get into it but it gets better. Very well acted too but overall a bit meh.
It's an ok play but nowhere near as good as Blue Orange. For me this gets 3.5 stars.
|
|
1,218 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Apr 23, 2018 23:15:43 GMT
Also there tonight.
Lordy, this was dull. The flyer had promised theatrical fireworks and a real battle of singer vs producer. (Genuinely have a read of the flyer after watching it and ask if it achieved its intention.) We got none of that tonight.
A few very weak arguments between Chaplin and Leeslake and that was about it.
Penhall seems to lack the balls to go fully at his subject matter, instead presenting us with an anti-hero producer with no character journey whatsoever, and a young pop singer who doesn't seem to write great songs anyway. And yet somehow the characters win an Ivor Novello award? How?
People are talking of a wonderful lack of resolution: but there is THE corniest ending with a very definite (weak) resolution for one of the characters.
Even the jokes are poor. And yet (part of) the Old Vic crowd were roaring. But laughing at the obvious.
It repeats itself terribly, has two (yes, count them) psychotherapists asking monotone and monotonous questions (poor Pip Carter and Jemma Redgrave landed with those roles...), and goes nowhere.
The acting is mostly good, but in not going for the jugular, Penhall's tale bores.
The set is also pretty crap. A thrust stage. A few chairs. A lot of dangling mics. And a weird backlit box where some of the actors walk to if they want to get away from the play for a bit.
Speaking of walking, note how many times the supporting characters have to do walking-in-circles/up-and-down the stage acting. Potentially to create a sense of drama and action, because this script ain't giving you any.
If you like your drama mild, your #metoo "polite", and two people arguing about not great music chords, you'll love this.
Actually, if you loved Consent at the NT, you will be thrilled by this.
Now we know why Rhys ran...
|
|
2,744 posts
|
Post by n1david on Apr 24, 2018 9:40:28 GMT
Also there last night, and I'm closer to the view of nash16 than that of NeilVHughes. I thought it was wordy but well-written, and well-acted, but ultimately quite a hollow piece and the potential of the setup completely fizzled as the play went on.
Chaplin's character is such an unpleasant person, gratuitously nasty, so there's no sense about this being about "the music industry" or even more generally #MeToo, it becomes a straightforward tale of bullying. The shrinks never quite ring true, the lawyers are being stage lawyers, and of the two lead characters, only one actually had a character. The final decision made by one of the characters is never properly explained and really comes out of nowhere, leaving the end of the play a limp disappointment.
Mood Muzak rather than Mood Music.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 24, 2018 21:59:41 GMT
Went tonight. I agree fully with @n1david and much of nash16 - a far from a satisfying production. To note: I got a last minute £10 seat online late in the afternoon in the Atkins box in the dress circle. For a performance in the end-on configuration this would not have been good (too much leaning and side stage missing). But for this production with the stage thrust directly beneath the boxes, it was fine (lots of nice close-ups of the actors). |
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on Apr 24, 2018 22:30:27 GMT
Oh well I’m looking forward to this. Thought I’d get some Rush tickets in a couple of weeks.
Pretty much just want to see it for Ben Chaplin who seriously impressed me at the NT about 10 years ago in The Reporter.
|
|
63 posts
|
Post by pledge on Apr 25, 2018 7:59:16 GMT
On the plus side...some nicely droll dialogue and one-liners; the rhythms of the overlapping conversations skilfully intertwined, making it very easy to listen to. (And I mean listen to - my eyes shut a few times in the first half.) Also, part 2 is decidedly stronger than Pt 1, so I felt it was worth staying on (a friend left in the interval). And Ben Chaplin very compelling.
On the other hand, it does all feel dramatically very slight. The supernumeraries (therapists/lawyers) are little more than walk-on/walk-off talking heads, and of the two lead characters one (as above) has almost no character, while the other is pretty-much just one-note - glibly self-serving. The "plot" such as it is hinges one a rather vague accusation that one character may/may not have been badly treated by persons unknown at some point, which is never really resolved, and never really seems to matter much to anyone anyway? To be honest, I'd forgotten the play between the O Vic and Waterloo station, and hadn't given it a thought until I opened this board. "Blue Orange" remains one of the high points of my theatre-going life, but by comparison this seems little more than background music...
|
|
546 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Apr 25, 2018 10:59:21 GMT
Think I'm going to let this one go so if anyone wants a free ticket for tonight in the circle, let me know.
|
|
1,256 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Apr 26, 2018 21:20:30 GMT
It’s a badly written and dull BBC radio play put on stage. Couldn’t care less about any of the annoying characters or their poor situations. Never believed the girl was a successful musician a la Adele. They needed to start the play with some big moment which showed that but it just petered in. Desperately trying to tap into #MeToo and say profound things about the music industry but instead you get lessons about copyright, lists of drugs and odd psychobabble. Such clunky writing. Lazily staged. A few chuckle moments (mainly from Chaplin). Lots of lovely voices on stage but given risible dialogue to spout. It felt like Penhall had done lots of research into different areas and then just tried to vomit them into a play whilst forgetting the drama. Pip Carter is in it though and I love his face and voice
|
|
3,565 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 27, 2018 5:06:07 GMT
Well, either we have different taste or I'm easily impressed or both, as I really enjoyed this last night and the reception seemed pretty enthusiastic, too.
My experience was hampered by my struggle to stay awake in the first act (not from boredom but, as ever, because I'm just not an evening person), so I know I missed a bit, but I liked what I saw, even though I felt Joe Penhall kept reaching for something and never quite grasping it, or perhaps shifting his target.
Yes, perhaps it was a bit of a hotch-potch but an entertaining one which I would recommend and would see again if I could. I'd have preferred it without so much walking around by the supporting characters (especially when one of them would stop but only to block my view), as the constant movement was distracting, but that's a minor quibble. More music would have been great, too, but it's always good to see new work and something which makes you both think and laugh, as this did for me.
|
|
406 posts
|
Post by MrBunbury on Apr 27, 2018 8:33:28 GMT
Well, either we have different taste or I'm easily impressed or both, as I really enjoyed this last night and the reception seemed pretty enthusiastic, too. My experience was hampered by my struggle to stay awake in the first act (not from boredom but, as ever, because I'm just not an evening person), so I know I missed a bit, but I liked what I saw, even though I felt Joe Penhall kept reaching for something and never quite grasping it, or perhaps shifting his target. Yes, perhaps it was a bit of a hotch-potch but an entertaining one which I would recommend and would see again if I could. I'd have preferred it without so much walking around by the supporting characters (especially when one of them would stop but only to block my view), as the constant movement was distracting, but that's a minor quibble. More music would have been great, too, but it's always good to see new work and something which makes you both think and laugh, as this did for me. I agree. I was also there last night and I found the play enjoyable. Maybe a bit pointless but entertaining. The characters are not particularly well developed, apart from Bernard, but I have seen worse. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 27, 2018 13:04:35 GMT
I really wanted to like this but...no.
Ben Chaplin's charisma and a well-written, staged bit of conflict at an awards ceremony were the two definite pluses of the production for me. And there were some potentially interesting ideas about collaboration versus exploitation in the arts.
I thought the psychotherapist/lawyer roles were thankless and a lazy device (from Mr Foxa: 'You know what I hate, when actors carry around an obviously empty glass or mug to suggest they are doing something when they aren't.' There were also some complaints about Jenna Redgrave's declamatory style of delivery the therapist lines, but I don't know what would have made those scenes work.)
I wonder if it would have worked better had they actually incorporated some good original music in it (they do some tiny riffs and a few lines of a song, but otherwise tease that there will be music when there is almost none.)
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 27, 2018 15:27:38 GMT
'Jemma'
|
|
270 posts
|
Post by littlesally on Apr 28, 2018 15:57:35 GMT
Just seen the matinee. Sometimes Theatreboard posts give such low expectations of a show that I’m then bowled over by it!!
I thought it was witty, thought provoking and well acted!
Of course, the opposite effect is also often true...
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 28, 2018 17:07:58 GMT
Less a drama, more a portrait. More mood than music. Some spoilers follow. . . I've been enjoying Penhall's "Mindhunter" series on Netflix, in which Jonathan Groff plays a pioneering profiler of serial killers, but forgets to profile himself. It's a fascinating show, that meticulously deglamourises sociopaths in a fresh and exciting way, charting their circular behaviours, repetitive mind patterns and manipulations. For this play, Penhall continues his analysis of sociopaths, but widens his net to cover a functioning sociopath (Ben Chaplin's music producer) who isn't a serial killer, and broadens his study to include all the enablers who help this monster to function in the wild. At first, the lack of drama in this show infuriated me, as all these supernumeries tell tell tell tell tell, while nobody shows anything at all. It's like watching a painter make his first banal boring brush strokes, in real time, watching the paint dry. But Penhall's word painting is deliberate, it's detailed, it's sharp, it's true, it's corrosive, it's wicked, and as he paints his final brush strokes, you are left with a vivid portrait of the full horror show of how a sociopath infects everyone and everything around him, and how complicit they all are. Ben Chaplin is compelling and convincing as the narcissistic monster, living among us, his genial grin never shifting the shark from his eyes. Neil Stuke, as his lawyer, shows how mirroring his client drives a normal man to mania. And Pip Carter's dry psychiatrist is a hoot in his precise calm delivery of home truths, Carter delivering his acid wry lilting lines as if a bored zookeeper, slopping down meat for a leopard at the zoo, with the full knowledge that leopards never change their spots. In the first half, I was so bored of watching Penhall's paint dry, I was tempted to leave. But in the second half, as Penhall placed his last lick of paint on this terrifying portrait, I realised I'd never forget it. 3 and a half stars.  |
|
270 posts
|
Post by littlesally on Apr 28, 2018 18:20:24 GMT
Less a drama, more a portrait. More mood than music. Some spoilers follow. . . I've been enjoying Penhall's "Mindhunter" series on Netflix, in which Jonathan Groff plays a pioneering profiler of serial killers, but forgets to profile himself. It's a fascinating show, that meticulously deglamourises sociopaths in a fresh and exciting way, charting their circular behaviours, repetitive mind patterns and manipulations. For this play, Penhall continues his analysis of sociopaths, but widens his net to cover a functioning sociopath (Ben Chaplin's music producer) who isn't a serial killer, and broadens his study to include all the enablers who help this monster to function in the wild. At first, the lack of drama in this show infuriated me, as all these supernumeries tell tell tell tell tell, while nobody shows anything at all. It's like watching a painter make his first banal boring brush strokes, in real time, watching the paint dry. But Penhall's word painting is deliberate, it's detailed, it's sharp, it's true, it's corrosive, it's wicked, and as he paints his final brush strokes, you are left with a vivid portrait of the full horror show of how a sociopath infects everyone and everything around him, and how complicit they all are. Ben Chaplin is compelling and convincing as the narcissistic monster, living among us, his genial grin never shifting the shark from his eyes. Neil Stuke, as his lawyer, shows how mirroring his client drives a normal man to mania. And Pip Carter's dry psychiatrist is a hoot in his precise calm delivery of home truths, Carter delivering his acid wry lilting lines as if a bored zookeeper, slopping down meat for a leopard at the zoo, with the full knowledge that leopards never change their spots. In the first half, I was so bored of watching Penhall's paint dry, I was tempted to leave. But in the second half, as Penhall placed his last lick of paint on this terrifying portrait, I realised I'd never forget it. 3 and a half stars. Exactly! |
|
196 posts
|
Post by rockinrobin on Apr 28, 2018 23:19:21 GMT
I enjoyed it more than I thought I would have. It's not a life-changing theatrical experience but a good show. A play about someone who many of us met - ruthless, sexist, narcisstic a***hole. Of course, since he is played by wonderfully charismatic Ben Chaplin, you kind of want to like him. He does steal the show a bit although Pip Carter as his therapist and Seana Kirslake as the singer who becomes a victim of his bullying are also very good. It's bitterly funny - actually I wish it would have been more bitter but overall I'm glad I saw this tonight.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Apr 29, 2018 15:18:17 GMT
I found this quite dull, second half is an improvement and Chaplin's performance will be a reason to stay for many(as well as the whole Game On element!)
The issue is that amongst all the clutter (both on stage and in the script) there is good tale about making it in the business and even if the exploitation isn't sexual it can still feel like a violation. I can see why Caitlin reacts as she does throughout and ultimately why she gets blamed-everyone knew what Bernard was like, why didn't she?
Overall I didn't think Seána Kerslake's Caitlin had the gravitas to be a star (why on earth did their dirgy Oasis sounding stuff even win a Ivor Novello) but as a performance worked really well with Chaplin's Bernard, with his comic timing also Chaplin is still a very sexy man and Bernard needs to be gorgeous/charming to explain why people put up with his nonsense, he must risk costing them as much as they make.
The lawyer/therapist characters just don't work, we need a buffer between this conflicting characters but it just doesn't work. I don't care, they seem to care even less. It is all rather one note and like this many riffs we here it all builds up to nothing.
|
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on May 2, 2018 16:06:09 GMT
If anyone wants to see this for the Bank Holiday weekend, book on their website or by phone and use the work BANK as a promo code. All tickets from Bands A-D reduced to £20.
I got one for the Saturday matinee - cat sitting for a friend this weekend and have naff all else to do in the day.
|
|
2,744 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 2, 2018 16:18:15 GMT
Press Night is tonight so trying to flog some cheap tickets before the reviews come out?
|
|
