1,133 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 21, 2019 13:08:48 GMT
The reviews I've read (Evening Standard etc) are very spoilery. I agree. I would have liked to go into this one knowing very little but the standard broke it right down and explained changes from the original source material. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Aug 21, 2019 13:40:16 GMT
I would have liked to go into this one knowing very little Yes, especially as I suspect the production derives a lot of its power from the very things the review reveals. Oh well - I had to cancel my trip last week so probably won't get to see it in London but who knows, with those reviews it might tour like Mary Stuart or make it to TV like Hamlet. |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 21, 2019 21:35:37 GMT
I thought this was superb! Very thought provoking and moving.
|
|
1,133 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 21, 2019 23:19:23 GMT
I'm having to miss next Tuesday's performance as I forgot I'm going to the cricket. First time! It was a £5 young person ticket so it's unlikely I'll be able to switch it. Gutted to miss this! I will be returning it of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 10:38:50 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. I've seen far too many productions recently that can be best described as "timely" or "relevant". I know theatre can be an important part of responding to the way the world is, especially as it can react much more quickly than film or TV, but with the way the world is right now, I'd really rather have more of a balance between relevant plays and escapist plays, rather than a majority of one and Present Laughter valiantly working hard to represent t'other practically all by itself. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Aug 22, 2019 10:43:20 GMT
Baemax, I think you've articulated what I was feeling well. I've overdosed on relevance and starkness for now and am yearning for something that is funny, beautiful or transporting.
I know everything is messed up. Do I want to see that played out over and over again? Not every theatre trip.
|
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 22, 2019 11:11:35 GMT
Baemax, I think you've articulated what I was feeling well. I've overdosed on relevance and starkness for now and am yearning for something that is funny, beautiful or transporting. I know everything is messed up. Do I want to see that played out over and over again? Not every theatre trip. This is also what I have been thinking, so much is a 're imagining for present time'. Sometimes I just want to see a play as written and be transported. I felt that The Doctor had just enough really beautiful scenes to save it, but as I said above I did leave the theatre furious so... |
|
1,057 posts
|
Post by David J on Aug 22, 2019 11:44:54 GMT
I have an issue with what I call "issue plays" that come out these days. Plays where perhaps watching the first 10 minutes its as if the playwright is telling me "my play is about racism/sexism/current politics" or whatever is trending. It's less about characters and more about having them stop to perhaps have a rant about what they believe. It's more about pigeon-holing a story around this one issue.
I've seen some Chekhov and Ibsen plays in recent years, and I keep feeling there's something about their writing that springs out to me. Something I wish there was more of these days. Sure their plays can be political or have some issue around them, but they're brought up more subtly. It's more about the individual characters and their stories during which you're piecing together what they're about, rather than them saying outright to us I'm this or that and I think so and so.
Downstate springs to mind. Yes the blurb makes it clear its about paedophiles but I was taken aback by how the issue was left on the back burner and let the characters and story flourish. The same for Sweat which felt better written than Europe. It's why these two plays will be high on my best of 2019 list
|
|
5,694 posts
|
Post by lynette on Aug 22, 2019 12:40:52 GMT
Off to see Measure for Measure at RSC this evening, the original #metoo play. So I agree with you, David, too much ‘preaching’ and not enough character or plot doing the work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 17:35:35 GMT
Well deserving of the excellent reviews with great character work and it being really well paced. Very much a play of ideas and it’s easy to let it tip over into one-sidedness but it never does, thanks to an adaptation that gives those competing ideas time to breathe and be justified. Directing is often rewarded for being more showy, as director’s work with actors is often too transparent for people to see. Here, more overt theatricality is stripped back to reveal what is always the reason that directing works, that aforementioned work with actors. Icke, like his European descendants, is great at shifting between both the surface and the hidden. This interplay of style and substance is a chimera (the biological meaning, not the mythical one). The two are part of the same organism and interact, one being more obvious than the the other at different times (is that literal or figurative? Not sure). Anyway, it’s good to see that sort of organic directing here. One question - bit spoilery. {Spoiler - click to view}
There’s a clear difference in the way that gender and race are performed. With gender it is overt, voice and posture (I was particularly drawn to the conflicting gender indicators from Ria Zmitrowicz). With race, there is no change, the revelations are unexpected. This is clearly deliberate but why? Is the suggestion that our reactions to race sit deeper? Not sure. Any ideas? |
|
1,133 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 26, 2019 13:12:01 GMT
I had to return my ticket for tomorrow evening so it may be put on sale this afternoon. Worth checking the website in a while if you're free and keen to see this!
|
|
91 posts
|
Post by gazzaw13 on Aug 26, 2019 21:55:50 GMT
Wow this was excellent. Interesting debate on science vs faith but the real standout is how Icke challenges the audience’s unconscious bias by the practice of gender and race swapping actors. Having read some reviews I was unsure how this would work and concerned that this was an Icke gimmick. Trust me it is a revelatory technique that adds immense depth to the play. Amongst our group of true bleeding heart liberals there was a lot of questioning of our responses to what we were seeing. Undoubtedly 5* and one of the highlights of 2019.
|
|
899 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Aug 27, 2019 10:54:39 GMT
I really enjoyed this, though I suffered from the lack of someone to discuss it with afterwards as I went alone. I do have some questions or niggles, though. I wondered why Icke had not updated the religious conflict, which to me seems rather distant from the contemporary world: wouldn't there have been more of a frisson of danger if the conflict had been between secularism and Islam rather than secularism and Roman Catholicism ? Perhaps that would have been too controversial or dangerous? I can imagine that if the Doctor slagged off Islam in the way she criticised the Roman Catholic church there would have been more tension. Though, I suppose, arts organisations are more afraid of Muslim over-reaction to criticism than Catholic over-reaction?
There was something not quite right about the TV panel scene, I thought, which the Time Out reviewer picked up on. Is the audience meant to think the academics are as wrong-headed as the Christian campaigner and the pro-lifer? The expressions of irritation or exasperation from the very middle-class middle-aged almost exclusively white audience were the same. It is true that the doctor is made to realise she used a word she shouldn't have but I wasn't entirely sure what Icke was getting at here with regard to identity politics. Is he criticising it, or saying it's gone too far, or both?
But a fascinating and absorbing evening all in all. Though, again, would the the doctor, even one brought up in her privileged world, have used that word?
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 27, 2019 10:59:34 GMT
I wondered why Icke had not updated the religious conflict, which to me seems rather distant from the contemporary world: wouldn't there have been more of a frisson of danger if the conflict had been between secularism and Islam rather than secularism and Roman Catholicism ? Perhaps that would have been too controversial or dangerous? I can imagine that if the Doctor slagged off Islam in the way she criticised the Roman Catholic church there would have been more tension. Though, I suppose, arts organisations are more afraid of Muslim over-reaction to criticism than Catholic over-reaction? Not sure what you mean tbh. Thought it worked perfectly fine the way it was done. |
|
|
|
Post by Fleance on Aug 27, 2019 11:30:07 GMT
There was something not quite right about the TV panel scene, I thought, which the Time Out reviewer picked up on. I thought it odd that, although there was a reference in the script to the fact that there were groups who supported the doctor, the panel was so utterly one-sided. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 11:54:12 GMT
There was something not quite right about the TV panel scene, I thought, which the Time Out reviewer picked up on. I thought it odd that, although there was a reference in the script to the fact that there were groups who supported the doctor, the panel was so utterly one-sided. Confrontational television is all around us, it was mirroring that sort of trial by media, I think. |
|
202 posts
|
Post by harry on Aug 27, 2019 15:56:41 GMT
There was something not quite right about the TV panel scene, I thought, which the Time Out reviewer picked up on. Is the audience meant to think the academics are as wrong-headed as the Christian campaigner and the pro-lifer? The expressions of irritation or exasperation from the very middle-class middle-aged almost exclusively white audience were the same. It is true that the doctor is made to realise she used a word she shouldn't have but I wasn't entirely sure what Icke was getting at here with regard to identity politics. Is he criticising it, or saying it's gone too far, or both? But a fascinating and absorbing evening all in all. Though, again, would the the doctor, even one brought up in her privileged world, have used that word? I think the key thing is that the word has a racist connotation but is also used in general parlance {Spoiler - click to view}(it's in the title of a Mr. Man book still widely read by children as far as I know...) so we're being asked to consider whether in using the word to describe a black man it came from some place of racial bias (conscious or subconscious) or whether she genuinely didn't consider or know the connotation when using it. {Spoiler - click to view}Obviously the fact that the black man in question is played by a white actor so when we the audience hear her use the word to him earlier in the play, we don't pick up on the potentially racist connotation adds to the complexity and "grey area" nature of the whole thing. |
|
899 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on Aug 27, 2019 20:06:18 GMT
There was something not quite right about the TV panel scene, I thought, which the Time Out reviewer picked up on. Is the audience meant to think the academics are as wrong-headed as the Christian campaigner and the pro-lifer? The expressions of irritation or exasperation from the very middle-class middle-aged almost exclusively white audience were the same. It is true that the doctor is made to realise she used a word she shouldn't have but I wasn't entirely sure what Icke was getting at here with regard to identity politics. Is he criticising it, or saying it's gone too far, or both? But a fascinating and absorbing evening all in all. Though, again, would the the doctor, even one brought up in her privileged world, have used that word? I think the key thing is that the word has a racist connotation but is also used in general parlance {Spoiler - click to view}(it's in the title of a Mr. Man book still widely read by children as far as I know...) so we're being asked to consider whether in using the word to describe a black man it came from some place of racial bias (conscious or subconscious) or whether she genuinely didn't consider or know the connotation when using it. {Spoiler - click to view}Obviously the fact that the black man in question is played by a white actor so when we the audience hear her use the word to him earlier in the play, we don't pick up on the potentially racist connotation adds to the complexity and "grey area" nature of the whole thing. I must admit I think the word has only been used in that one way for some time, but I could be wrong. And some people are tone deaf when it comes to language and race; viz. the clumsy use of the word 'coloured' by some people who have to apologise afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 28, 2019 9:51:28 GMT
I think the key thing is that the word has a racist connotation but is also used in general parlance {Spoiler - click to view}(it's in the title of a Mr. Man book still widely read by children as far as I know...) so we're being asked to consider whether in using the word to describe a black man it came from some place of racial bias (conscious or subconscious) or whether she genuinely didn't consider or know the connotation when using it. {Spoiler - click to view}Obviously the fact that the black man in question is played by a white actor so when we the audience hear her use the word to him earlier in the play, we don't pick up on the potentially racist connotation adds to the complexity and "grey area" nature of the whole thing. I must admit I think the word has only been used in that one way for some time, but I could be wrong. And some people are tone deaf when it comes to language and race; viz. the clumsy use of the word 'coloured' by some people who have to apologise afterwards. I have canvassed quite a lot of people I have come into contact with since I first saw this play a week ago on Friday and not one single person, including myself, was aware of the connotations of this word. I certainly wouldn't consider myself tone deaf, but I would have happily used that word to describe anyone without an iota of knowledge of what I was actually saying, so I can well believe the Doctor was not aware. |
|
91 posts
|
Post by gazzaw13 on Aug 28, 2019 10:15:59 GMT
I must admit I think the word has only been used in that one way for some time, but I could be wrong. And some people are tone deaf when it comes to language and race; viz. the clumsy use of the word 'coloured' by some people who have to apologise afterwards. I have canvassed quite a lot of people I have come into contact with since I first saw this play a week ago on Friday and not one single person, including myself, was aware of the connotations of this word. I certainly wouldn't consider myself tone deaf, but I would have happily used that word to describe anyone without an iota of knowledge of what I was actually saying, so I can well believe the Doctor was not aware. Like vickyg I also did some canvassing and found it was an ‘age thing’. Those old enough to have seen or lived through the time of In the Heat of the Night and Blazing Saddles made the link but the younger group had no idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 10:28:47 GMT
If it helps any, I've not seen the play but putting together the clues of one of the Mr Men having a name that these days carries negative racial connotations, I am confident I have worked out what word you're all talking about. Mid-thirties, if you're trying to put age brackets on whether people know of this word as being used in a racist manner or not.
|
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Aug 28, 2019 10:29:43 GMT
I have canvassed quite a lot of people I have come into contact with since I first saw this play a week ago on Friday and not one single person, including myself, was aware of the connotations of this word. I certainly wouldn't consider myself tone deaf, but I would have happily used that word to describe anyone without an iota of knowledge of what I was actually saying, so I can well believe the Doctor was not aware. Like vickyg I also did some canvassing and found it was an ‘age thing’. Those old enough to have seen or lived through the time of In the Heat of the Night and Blazing Saddles made the link but the younger group had no idea. Yeah it meant nothing to me, I thought the 'uppity' discussion therefore seemed a bit forced. Seems it was my relative ignorance then! |
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Aug 28, 2019 11:54:25 GMT
If it helps any, I've not seen the play but putting together the clues of one of the Mr Men having a name that these days carries negative racial connotations, I am confident I have worked out what word you're all talking about. Mid-thirties, if you're trying to put age brackets on whether people know of this word as being used in a racist manner or not. Me too! After a Google search anyway.
I was going to try and see this but have just had a helpful email from Almeida saying it's sold out. It wasn't when I last looked so that can only be a good sign for positive word of mouth.
Am a smidgen older (if two decades can be called a smidgen) than Baemax and to me that word is a very American term I would expect to see in Civil War dramas or Deep South set works. I don't think it has the same meaning or connotations in UK at all. Where is the play set?
|
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Aug 28, 2019 12:49:10 GMT
If it helps any, I've not seen the play but putting together the clues of one of the Mr Men having a name that these days carries negative racial connotations, I am confident I have worked out what word you're all talking about. Mid-thirties, if you're trying to put age brackets on whether people know of this word as being used in a racist manner or not. Me too! After a Google search anyway.
I was going to try and see this but have just had a helpful email from Almeida saying it's sold out. It wasn't when I last looked so that can only be a good sign for positive word of mouth.
Am a smidgen older (if two decades can be called a smidgen) than Baemax and to me that word is a very American term I would expect to see in Civil War dramas or Deep South set works. I don't think it has the same meaning or connotations in UK at all. Where is the play set?
I actually don't think they mention where it's set. I had assumed somewhere in the UK as there are mostly English accents along with one Scottish and one South African. Come to think of it, in the discussion on BBC Radio 4 Front Row I think they described it as a 'private hospital' which I would still think makes it UK. I am also mid-thirties and mainly spoke to people up to 10 yrs older and a few years younger than me. Definitely could be a generational thing. I don't get the impression Prof Woolff was lying about being aware of the term as she definitely had the courage of her convictions. |
|
546 posts
|
Post by drmaplewood on Aug 28, 2019 15:34:38 GMT
Must be heading for a transfer, surely?
|
|
