397 posts
|
Post by altamont on May 5, 2018 14:41:31 GMT
I had an interesting discussion with a female writer friend about this yesterday. In my take on the piece, I felt that Hickson was consciously using humour, self-parody, exaggeration in the piece and was, in addition to the ideas about male power, etc., making a point about the essential (necessary?) selfishness (perhaps even absurdity) of the artist (the Picasso bit.) My friend took away an entirely different message - she felt it was all very serious, that Hickson really thought the odd woods scene was an idealised form of theatre and that she believes that theatre can bring down the patriarchy/capitalism. So I liked it quite a bit more than my friend (who thought it was in such rough shape that it shouldn't have been put on.) Whereas like n1david says above, I found it stimulating, if uneasy. My friend thinks that I endowed the piece with my own sense of humour and irony, which wasn't the playwright's design - which could be true. I've consciously avoided reading any interviews with Hickson, for fear that I'll discover my friend is right. Broadly speaking, I’m with you - I thought there was quite a satirical element to the whole thing - especially the jungle/woods scene |
|
92 posts
|
Post by chameleon on May 5, 2018 16:08:02 GMT
Did anyone see 'Caught' by Christopher Chen at the Almeida a couple of years back - used a similar technique of rug-pulling to look at issues of race... Wasn't it at the Arcola rather than the Almeida? I didn't see it, but I remember it being on, I think as part of a short festival of international new writing. Yes, you're right. The Arcola. Downstairs. Review from US production. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2018 18:25:23 GMT
Could be, but why face away from the stage? (Mr Foxa said we should warn Theatremonkey about the poor view from those seats ;-)) Why face away from the audience? Because it might be meant to suggest the audience. Perhaps also the idea of making an audience confront itself and its usual expectations (entertainment, babies and dogs) as opposed to challenging ideas and non-naturalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2018 19:51:44 GMT
Surprised how little discussion there has been about this play in the site, had to go to the second page to find the thread. Since last night have thought about this more than all the plays I have seen this year, may not be the best play I’ve seen but may become one of the most stimulating and may consider seeing it again, will look into seeing the availability for the Q&A when I get home. Too much to write about! It's been a week since I saw it and I'm still trying to get my thoughts into something manageable. One thing, though, in response to a particular point. The third section isn't satirical at all, it's absolutely straight (no pun intended). What it is, however, is deliberately provocative, daring people to ridicule it and so on. The style is no different than you might have got in a symbolist drama a century ago but, even now, playing with form is liable to get a similar sneery response as those plays did then. "We need new forms" says Treplev in 'The Seagull' and you can easily see that section as Hickson's homage to him and his own attempts at new forms in his own play. Our twenty first century theatre is stuck in old forms just as much as that of Chekhov's nineteenth century. Following that, the repeated orgasms in the play become deliberate because what else is a linear plot reaching a climax than a theatrical orgasm? Traditional play structure emerged from a male dominated culture and the forms that people find comforting tend to be those that replicate that masculine view through their repetition and familiarity. Linear and pointed not curves and circles (symbolised in the lighting design intervention in that section, I thought). To be clear, I don't think it's as simple as male/female though. To return to Chekhov he is more circular and curved in his writing. He, Hickson and others, are points on a continuum. So the third section is an attempt that is heartfelt but destined to be dismissed and misunderstood. The final section, then, is the one that deliberately takes the shape of the above but subverts expectations of what is expected to be a climatic scene of realism. My personal preference may have been to burn the whole structure down and end in something fragmented but, hey, I'm male and I can get away with that sort of thing where a female playwright may not. What Hickson has done is to go the Annie Baker route (and no better person to use), so we have a scene with that deliberate lack of a rush towards a climax and a use of realism that creates a reality often denied, that of a wholly female denouement, calmly travelling to an 'end' or 'not end'. Existing within a hyper-realistic context, the final section becomes just as much a provocation through its denial of closure/climax (and that's before you even get to the content, which is similarly, and deliberately, provocative). |
|
4,974 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 5, 2018 23:33:01 GMT
An unplanned visit as I was coming through Kings Cross from Cambridge to see A Streetcar Named Desire.
After 2hr 10min without an interval the Almeida gets very uncomfortable and it’s just not the seating, as the play is absolutely dreadful.
A play a bit like frozen, that has just played the West End by which I mean a male playwright couldn’t of wrote - due to the graphic content. So the Almeida gone on one of their political correctness binges and had a season devoted to lady playwrights.
Perhaps on their next political correctness binge, they can put plays on for prisoners at say the local HMP Holloway, they could stage this and ensure the prisoners lives are miserable and the British public gets full ‘just desserts’.
The acting was fine.
1 Star.
|
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on May 6, 2018 4:08:41 GMT
The third section isn't satirical at all, it's absolutely straight (no pun intended). What it is, however, is deliberately provocative, daring people to ridicule it and so on. Oddly, though you're disagreeing with my use of "satirical", I agree with much of what you've said. When I use the word "satirical", I'm suggesting that Hickson is satirising our (the audience) expectations by presenting that scene and challenging us in how we react to it, and knowing that many will find it somewhat ridiculous and out of place. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 17:50:23 GMT
The third section isn't satirical at all, it's absolutely straight (no pun intended). What it is, however, is deliberately provocative, daring people to ridicule it and so on. Oddly, though you're disagreeing with my use of "satirical", I agree with much of what you've said. When I use the word "satirical", I'm suggesting that Hickson is satirising our (the audience) expectations by presenting that scene and challenging us in how we react to it, and knowing that many will find it somewhat ridiculous and out of place. Ah, I thought you meant that she was satirising the type of scene she wrote. Given that it's pretty much sold out I hope that it's getting beyond the usual Almeida audience and to a less affluent demographic or at least having an afterlife so that it does so. Whilst there is so much interesting discussion about the play elsewhere it's also a shame that it's not getting much considered reflection on here compared to other, less feted, shows. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 20:21:59 GMT
I’d love to discuss this play, but after the discussion about West Side Story, I am reasonably convinced it will be derailed and I am just not interested in/lack the energy to handle misogynists in a place where I come in my downtime.
It’s more than a hunch, less than a sure thing, but this doesn’t feel like a particularly safe space to discuss things that are really dear to my heart/wrong with society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 21:16:08 GMT
I’d love to discuss this play, but after the discussion about West Side Story, I am reasonably convinced it will be derailed and I am just not interested in/lack the energy to handle misogynists in a place where I come in my downtime. It’s more than a hunch, less than a sure thing, but this doesn’t feel like a particularly safe space to discuss things that are really dear to my heart/wrong with society. That's a shame and it does highlight an issue on this (and to be honest, most) internet discussions; the tendency of those who want to shout earliest and longest in a conscious or subconscious attempt to stifle further discussion and to guide perception away from what they are against. On the WSS thread, as soon as certain quarters resorted to whataboutism and false equivalence you knew they had nothing. Unfortunately they continued having nothing, repeating it ad nauseam until the whole discussion was destroyed. It's all they had left and they succeeded. It took the bombing of Guernica to force Picasso into taking a stand, so you have to consider at what point the fight is worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 7, 2018 16:18:01 GMT
Sounds really intriguing but no interval puts me off.
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 7, 2018 19:23:06 GMT
Sounds really intriguing but no interval puts me off. This was discussed at the Q&A and the playwright and cast decided they didn’t want people discussing it in an interval - they wanted people to see the whole play before making judgements. Of course, given the reviews, there’s an alternative suggestion that they didn’t want people leaving at the interval, but I’m inclined to believe the former. |
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 7, 2018 19:28:48 GMT
I understand. Normally I would have bought a ticket but due to backpain I need a short break.
|
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on May 8, 2018 3:42:04 GMT
I understand. Normally I would have bought a ticket but due to backpain I need a short break. I share your concern about this but have risked booking as from early comments here the play sounded interesting. Plus I do have the assurance of an osteopathy appointment a few days later! However, if the "no interval" reason cited by n1david is true (and I'm not doubting it), what about the people who attend alone so are unlikely to be discussing any play at the interval unless they happen to get into conversation with someone in a neighbouring seat? Plus, in my experience, particularly at the Almeida, the entire interval is consumed by a mad dash for and then queuing for the loo. Sounds to me like as though the creatives think theatregoers have nothing to do but focus on the work, whereas most of us have far more prosaic - and sometimes pressing - concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on May 9, 2018 9:01:11 GMT
"Of course, given the reviews, there’s an alternative suggestion that they didn’t want people leaving at the interval"
The reviews were nearly all excellent. Personally, I think it's essential viewing.
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on May 9, 2018 9:24:07 GMT
"Of course, given the reviews, there’s an alternative suggestion that they didn’t want people leaving at the interval" The reviews were nearly all excellent. Personally, I think it's essential viewing. They were mostly very good, but it did get two high-profile 1* reviews. Interestingly I've had two people this week quite independently ask if I'd seen it, as they had and wanted to discuss it. One of them loved it (as I did), the other one said he'd never been made more angry in a theatre and wanted to stand up and boo at the end. There have been walkouts. Ella Hickson last night suggested that it was a certain type of person that was hating it - the people whose privilege was being challenged - but it's obviously not everyone's cup of tea. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 9:47:42 GMT
"Of course, given the reviews, there’s an alternative suggestion that they didn’t want people leaving at the interval" The reviews were nearly all excellent. Personally, I think it's essential viewing. Having seen the play I think their fears were justified. I would have left after the first half but am very pleased that I didn’t. You have to see the whole play in order to have an informed discussion about it. That said I find it a tricky play to talk about. If there are tickets available I would recommend people go. The play didn’t really say anything new to me, but I admired the writer’s boldness and confidence in writing as though she were saying things that had never been done or said before (ah youth!). And you know, perhaps these things have to be stated over and over again until a change occurs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 9:50:05 GMT
"Of course, given the reviews, there’s an alternative suggestion that they didn’t want people leaving at the interval" The reviews were nearly all excellent. Personally, I think it's essential viewing. They were mostly very good, but it did get two high-profile 1* reviews. Interestingly I've had two people this week quite independently ask if I'd seen it, as they had and wanted to discuss it. One of them loved it (as I did), the other one said he'd never been made more angry in a theatre and wanted to stand up and boo at the end. There have been walkouts. Ella Hickson last night suggested that it was a certain type of person that was hating it - the people whose privilege was being challenged - but it's obviously not everyone's cup of tea. I love the sound of this writer more and more. I think i’m a fan. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 9:54:00 GMT
"Of course, given the reviews, there’s an alternative suggestion that they didn’t want people leaving at the interval" The reviews were nearly all excellent. Personally, I think it's essential viewing. They were mostly very good, but it did get two high-profile 1* reviews. Interestingly I've had two people this week quite independently ask if I'd seen it, as they had and wanted to discuss it. One of them loved it (as I did), the other one said he'd never been made more angry in a theatre and wanted to stand up and boo at the end. There have been walkouts. Ella Hickson last night suggested that it was a certain type of person that was hating it - the people whose privilege was being challenged - but it's obviously not everyone's cup of tea. In the 'hating' group are Letts, Treneman, Hart in the Sunday Times and the Spectator bloke whose name I can never remember. They are the right wing reactionary element, and it was a wholly predictable response from such a group. There's an occasional one who thought it ignored second wave feminists, such as Libby Purves, and a few twitter comments that said it didn't go far enough from the more radical end.
What is fascinating are the scores of comments from younger women who say that finally they see something they recognise. I can understand in a way as class, and my own background, is absent or horribly clichéd in most theatre portrayals.
On the other hand there's a conservatism regarding 'form' and a lack of understanding is inevitably going to arise from that. We are very poor, as a nation, in linking or dividing form and content, content rules in nearly all instances. Whenever I see the term 'style over substance' it is often a case of not realising that the form is the substance that is thought to be missing. Meaning isn't something that has to be delivered through content. This is a play whose form is as important as what people say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2018 17:44:31 GMT
Just returned a £20 stalls ticket for the matinee on Saturday - up for sale on the Almeida website if anyone is interested!
|
|
|
|
Post by asfound on May 17, 2018 7:06:35 GMT
Everyone seems to think the first scene is the best, but I must be missing something because I thought it was terrible to the point that I was actually thinking about leaving. It just seemed to be a bunch of cliches and half-baked Guardian op-eds thrown in a blender. As a minority I'm not even sure why I can't stand this kind of discussion but I guess it makes me feel conspicuous and awkward. But the thing that bothered me most about it is that I didn't even recognise what they were discussing - admittedly I've only been going to the theatre regularly for the past 2 years or so (obviously I'm no expert but I try!)but it seemed more like they were talking about new wave French cinema than contemporary London theatre.
It got a lot better after that thankfully, loved the playing with form and structure and the meta-theatrical aspects. The 2nd act was clever and unsettling, the 3rd I think was subversive and surreal and the finale about the inevitability of power and artistic tunnel vision was an interesting way to close and mirrored the 2nd.
I didn't actually find the gender politics or even the commentary on creativity and the artist's place in the world that profound of provocative - deep down I'm not even sure I even found it that experimental after just seeing 4.48 psychosis but it holds your attention and parts of it work brilliantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 7:29:35 GMT
Everyone seems to think the first scene is the best, but I must be missing something because I thought it was terrible to the point that I was actually thinking about leaving. It just seemed to be a bunch of cliches and half-baked Guardian op-eds thrown in a blender. As a minority I'm not even sure why I can't stand this kind of discussion but I guess it makes me feel conspicuous and awkward. But the thing that bothered me most about it is that I didn't even recognise what they were discussing - admittedly I've only been going to the theatre regularly for the past 2 years or so (obviously I'm no expert but I try!)but it seemed more like they were talking about new wave French cinema than contemporary London theatre. It got a lot better after that thankfully, loved the playing with form and structure and the meta-theatrical aspects. The 2nd act was clever and unsettling, the 3rd I think was subversive and surreal and the finale about the inevitability of power and artistic tunnel vision was an interesting way to close and mirrored the 3rd. I didn't actually find the gender politics or even the commentary on creativity and the artist's place in the world that profound of provocative - deep down I'm not even sure I even found it that experimental after just seeing 4.48 psychosis but it holds your attention and parts of it work brilliantly. This is exactly what I felt about this play but found it very difficult to articulate - or rather have become a bit cautious about posting my views on this forum. A lot of the time you post your thoughts and you get jumped on, often by posters who have misconstrued what you are trying to say. So, thank you! |
|
423 posts
|
Post by dlevi on May 17, 2018 8:51:14 GMT
I saw this yesterday afternoon and found it exasperating, fascinating, challenging and sometimes downright stupid. I thought the first scene was as infuriating as Oleanna but then I liked the "meta" aspect of the talkback and the cassuolet scene I thought was terrific but then the forest scene I thought was over the top pretentious but then... well as you can tell I went back ands forth throughout the play. She raises some valid points about the needless exploitation of women's bodies in scene one but by the end of the play she was undercutting them by her own exploitation of women's bodies and sex . If that last scene had been written by a man it would be condemned as wildly sexist. But maybe that's part of her point. Ultimately though I found myself asking if a playwright's internal and creative struggle is of interest to anyone but another playwright?
|
|
392 posts
|
Post by lichtie on May 17, 2018 10:48:30 GMT
I saw it in the matinee yesterday as well. My main feeling was neither particularly for or against (the two older men next to me were definitely against as they sat there glowering at the end with nary a clap of a hand, but two old ladies at the bus stop afterwards were enthusing wildly). I think Oleanna was mostly right about the first act (however well it was acted), which was definitely like a ping-pong diatribe below the line on CiF - the play may wear its heart on its sleve in approved Brechtian fashion, but it still needs to engage at a level worth listening to. Part two ended up in similarly unbelievable narrative territory regarding the money angle (the whole artists do it for the creative love and not the money is both ahistorical and wildy overstated,so ends up appearing like a naive high school drama), but was at least livened up by the surreal intrusion of the real baby (which is otherwise a recurring symbolic theme). Act 3 I confess I dozed off when they turned the lights down so perhaps best I don't comment... Act 4 I agree with dlevi about the playing with sex as a means to question the validity of the dramatical choices just makes you question the validity of the drama (not the only place such questioning perhaps doesn't get the response Hickson was looking for)... But overall the reason I rate it OK-ish was actually none of these - it was the fact that I saw absolutely nothing new here that hasn't been trotted out in endless dingy Edinburgh venues come August every year... I was hoping it might actually move beyond such things in its playing about with structure and form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 12:17:24 GMT
|
|
392 posts
|
Post by lichtie on May 18, 2018 10:39:55 GMT
Really good piece by Dan Rebellato on this (warning - spoilery, obviously) Interesting read - I think the problem I have is that, unlike the author, I felt none of those emotions he talked about in his last paragraph. Hence my ho-hum reaction. |
|
