|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 7:52:09 GMT
Has anyone seen this/is going? Heard it's 3 hours long and only review on the twits suggests its pretty dire, so keen to know! Seeing tomorrow so can report back... Search almeidatheatre, pretty much everything is highly positive (maybe about ten or more comments so far). Cue the usual..... |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 14, 2019 14:28:21 GMT
I can't make it to London this weekend so I've just returned a front row seat for Friday if anyone's interested - it's on their website.
|
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 16, 2019 9:27:50 GMT
I attended with a friend last night. This will be divisive.
Without giving anything away, it essentially becomes a bit of a morality tale, or at least a story upon which the writer/director has hung a lot of questions and warnings about political correctness, racial tension, religious tension, the power of the media and our desire as a society to bring anyone down as soon as there's a sniff of controversy about them. A play about those things always stands at risk of either not tackling the subject properly, or being too much of a lecture delivered from a moral and intellectual high ground. I think Icke has navigated it quite nicely, but race and religion are not subjects I profess to being an expert on so I'll wait for others to comment on how deftly they feel he's handled these sensitive subjects. The direction is very typical of Icke (the tables, the slow revolve, running around in circles, video cameras and projectors) but is very competently done, it's a well staged show. Only one bum-note springs to mind, Oliver Alvin-Wilson really over-egging a moment, this just needs to be turned down a few notches.
Both me and my companion happen to be doctors, and as usual there's a bunch of unrealistic stuff about how hospitals work, how doctors work, how basic human physiology works, but that's not why people come to the theatre so I'll let him away with it. I also promise nobody has these profound debates and grandstanding dramatic moments inside your friendly local hospital, and we're all the better for it.
The quality of acting, particularly from Stevenson, Kirsty Rider and Ria Zmitrowicz should be praised. What ultimately I think becomes a very nice element of this production is the very blind casting of actors (in multiple senses) which happens to tie in really nicely with some of the themes of the play. I'd be lying if I said it didn't take me 5 minutes to figure out that's what was happening, but I really liked some of the extra layers it gave this play, and could presumably give to many others as this becomes more of the norm.
The biggest negative for me was the length of the first act. At 90 minutes it's not physically too long, but there isn't enough material and enough need to keep it going for that length. There's easily 10-15 minutes of pruning, particularly in some of the longer scenes which just go on and on long after you've understood what point they're trying to make and what ultimately is going to happen. The second act picks things up and is much more stimulating. The other thing I don't like which is again an Icke staple is the fact that a certain actor has to stay on stage through the whole interval. Thank god they were given a cup of tea, but everyone deserves a break.
This ends up being in the 4 star territory for me, although I can already imagine the posters further down this thread which will not enjoy it at all. But Robert Icke fanclub members will get what they need, and it's another great turn for Juliet Stevenson.
|
|
36 posts
|
Post by johnnyutah on Aug 16, 2019 23:35:13 GMT
I've just come back from this fascinating production. There's a lot to unpack. First thought, it demands a second viewing. The first half alone would give Quentin Letts an attack of the vapours. Taking the strapline from The Wire,listening carefully is very much required. This play riffs on the idea of what we see is not necessarily what occurred. Is it all predicated by the gender, religion and the ethnicity of the participants?
Both the power and specificity of language are explored. The doctor's fastidiousness over the precise use of words shifts from comedy to tragedy. This tick correlates with the ascetic world of medicine where cold hard data is the only currency.
Juliet Stevenson is wonderful. This is a sublimely nuanced performance. The doctor's hidebound impatience with anything outside of her control permeates her increasingly fraught encounters. She's become an eminent scientist through hard work. From her perspective, both her gender and ethnicity are not considerations. One major theme is the battle of empirical evidence versus an amplified culture of grievance.
Hopefully, this all doesn't sound like eating your greens.It's not. Robert Icke is a craftsmen. His last Almeida hurrah stands up to his best work. Go and see this if your want to see one of our greatest stage actors strut her stuff. Finally, a special mention to the pulsing musical accompaniment.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 17, 2019 18:57:53 GMT
I wonder if I'm just going off theatre right now. Or at least a certain sort of important (I suppose) and earnest (so it seems to me) theatre.
I couldn't get into 'Europe' at the Donmar at all - though many people I respect loved it. And I felt the same about this - I just was too aware of all the trickiness and calculation of it. Plus that first act went on forever. And that blasted drum. But it may be me. A friend who was at the same performance last night loved it and was in tears at the end.
I want something else. Maybe I need a holiday.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 18, 2019 10:08:03 GMT
I wonder if I'm just going off theatre right now. Or at least a certain sort of important (I suppose) and earnest (so it seems to me) theatre. I haven't been excited by many plays in London recently. I have really enjoyed some plays here in the North West (I went to a scratch night in a Liverpool bar a couple of weeks ago that was fantastic) but the last London thing that really left me buzzing - in the way I used to from a music gig - was Wolfie. I think London theatre needs new voices with more varied life experiences behind them, maybe - also, with so much TV being made now the emerging talent is quickly snapped up for that. |
|
1,862 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 18, 2019 10:19:55 GMT
An extremely earnest production, many moral and intricate theological arguments and how your personal opinions and values are a two edged sword.
Juliet Stevenson was spellbinding, after the interval I was transfixed as my values are closer to Doctor Wolff and would have likely acted similarly and was getting quite internally agitated as the evening progressed especially in the filmed scene.
A play that requires concentration as the understandable blind casting messes with your internalised prejudices.
|
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 19, 2019 10:26:56 GMT
An extremely earnest production, many moral and intricate theological arguments and how your personal opinions and values are a two edged sword. Juliet Stevenson was spellbinding, after the interval I was transfixed as my values are closer to Doctor Wolff and would have likely acted similarly and was getting quite internally agitated as the evening progressed especially in the filmed scene. A play that requires concentration as the understandable blind casting messes with your internalised prejudices. I think this most accurately describes how I felt about this play. I saw it on Friday and it has pretty much taken until today to get my thoughts together about it. I have booked to see it again because the best bits are, as Neil says, spellbinding. I came out furious though and convinced it was one of the worst things I had ever seen, shouting "this is what people who read The Telegraph think it says in The Guardian!" but having reflected, I am sad to say that I think it might just be my internalised prejudices speaking. I agree with the person who said that they were aware of the way that the writing was being used to make you think in a certain way, and this didn't flow as much as it could. It felt a bit like an exercise in audience manipulation at times.
As I saw it in previews, I did think it needed quite a lot of work. When I was waiting at the bus stop afterwards Naomi Wirthner came to the same stop with her friends and was saying that there are a lot of daily rewrites, so I'll be interested to see how it evolves.
I agree that I would have done and said as Prof Wolff did and that's uncomfortable viewing!
Juliet Stephenson is just excellent and she was responsible for all the best parts. Ria Zmitrowicz is also great, but there are some strange performances from other people and I felt there was a lot of 'acting' going on. Again I am curious to see how this evolves and I am very interested to read the reviews!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 20, 2019 9:05:10 GMT
When I saw in (in previews as well) one of the actors seemed to be wearing an earpiece so possibly a result of lots of last minute rewrites.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Aug 20, 2019 9:48:51 GMT
I couldn't get into 'Europe' at the Donmar at all - though many people I respect loved it. I wouldn't hold too much store by Europe. It was a head scratcher, but some seemed to almost will it to be more relevant and prophetic of the current times than it could be. The broader points held up but at 25-years distance even those weren't terribly insightful. IMO! |
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 20, 2019 13:43:52 GMT
There’s an interesting discussion with Robert Icke about this play on Front Row from Monday (19th Aug). Available as a podcast and the interview starts at 10mins 52.
|
|
795 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Aug 20, 2019 19:49:24 GMT
There’s an interesting discussion with Robert Icke about this play on Front Row from Monday (19th Aug). Available as a podcast and the interview starts at 10mins 52. A link please? If it’s allowed in here. |
|
1,256 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 20, 2019 20:26:06 GMT
There’s an interesting discussion with Robert Icke about this play on Front Row from Monday (19th Aug). Available as a podcast and the interview starts at 10mins 52. A link please? If it’s allowed in here. |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 21, 2019 8:45:11 GMT
When I saw in (in previews as well) one of the actors seemed to be wearing an earpiece so possibly a result of lots of last minute rewrites. If it's who I'm thinking of, I believe it was a hearing aid. But perhaps I'm wrong! |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 21, 2019 10:14:26 GMT
Seems to be 4 and 5 star reviews for this
Seeing it tonight!
|
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2019 10:19:27 GMT
Well I thought this was pretty astonishing. Vintage Icke, giving relatively unfussy staging and allowing the play to do the talking, building on seemingly simple yet endlessly morally complex premise with arguments and situations wound so tight I almost couldn't bear it. At the interval I knew I was loving the play, but was a bit unsure about the production and the use of actors very specifically not having the same physical attributes as the characters they were playing. {Spoiler - click to view}
But then the use of these same actors in the second half, now embodying different characters who DO share their physical attributes and arguing from those positions ultimately adds another layer - did we misread the situation because of our biases? Or do their own biases mean that they can't see the version that we saw that was in its own way without bias, or at least without the bias they claim was there?
And then Icke layers the whole thing with the modern internet age / public outrage / trial by twitter stuff which could apply to almost anything in the news today. So all the age old philosophical questions of science vs religion, unconcious bias, truth as an absolute good (or not), whether one should apologise for making a decision that was taken deliberately and in consideration of the facts but in hindsight had the worst outcome etc. are put into this pressure cooker by online scrutiny and accountability. Plot specifics gradually reveal themselves and {Spoiler - click to view}
there's a neat callback in the final moments that throws the opening 30 seconds into stark relief but for me it was about the journey and Juliet Stevenson's wonderful and committed central performance and the fascinating character she embodies. A real mentally invigorating treat. Don't go alone - you'll need someone to chew it all over with afterwards! |
|
899 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Aug 21, 2019 10:43:02 GMT
Five stars from the Telegraph and the Guardian; Billington is an Icke-sceptic, so his praise carries more weight than usual. Can't wait till I see this tomorrow.
|
|
1,256 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Aug 21, 2019 10:58:03 GMT
Well I thought this was pretty astonishing. Vintage Icke, giving relatively unfussy staging and allowing the play to do the talking, building on seemingly simple yet endlessly morally complex premise with arguments and situations wound so tight I almost couldn't bear it. Oh there sooooo should have been spoiler tags in this post. Thanks for ruining some key bits for me/us ;( |
|
|
|
Post by jennapatchell on Aug 21, 2019 10:59:17 GMT
Well this one does sound interesting. After reading Billington's review I have booked for a couple weeks time.
|
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on Aug 21, 2019 11:23:53 GMT
I would advise anyone going to see this to avoid reviews and the comments from Harry above - there are surprises in this astonishing production that it is much better to discover for yourself rather than being told about in advance.
Of course, that could apply to many plays, but in my opinion, it is especially true here
|
|
19,677 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 21, 2019 11:27:13 GMT
Spoiler tags added. You can learn how to use spoiler tags in FAQ No. 10 here www.theatreboard.co.uk/post/256470/threadIf the technology defeats you please start your post with CONTAINS SPOILERS so that people can at least choose to skip reading it. Thanks |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2019 11:33:36 GMT
Well I thought this was pretty astonishing. Vintage Icke, giving relatively unfussy staging and allowing the play to do the talking, building on seemingly simple yet endlessly morally complex premise with arguments and situations wound so tight I almost couldn't bear it. Oh there sooooo should have been spoiler tags in this post. Thanks for ruining some key bits for me/us ;( I think (hope) when you see the show you will understand why I didn't feel the need to spoiler tag those things. Particularly the first thing that has since been tagged was something that I just found interesting and clever about the cast character doubling rather than any sort of "reveal". But I accept the reprimand and apologise if your experience of the play is now dampened - I really just wanted to encourage people to go and experience it. |
|
1,862 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 21, 2019 11:35:07 GMT
Agree with altamont about going in blind, having read most of the reviews and the nature of the play any discussion is likely to descend into spoilers and some of the reviews definitely gave away a bit too much. |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 21, 2019 11:40:19 GMT
I would advise anyone going to see this to avoid reviews and the comments from Harry above - there are surprises in this astonishing production that it is much better to discover for yourself rather than being told about in advance. Of course, that could apply to many plays, but in my opinion, it is especially true here Fair enough. I suppose my reasoning is that I didn't feel I "revealed" more about the show than the reviewers would (and since have) but I also get that some people will come here having decided to not read professional reviews so sorry if people feel I've ruined it for them. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 21, 2019 11:48:53 GMT
The reviews I've read (Evening Standard etc) are very spoilery.
|
|
